Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For Truro, in the room of David Charles Penhaligon, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Alton.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRIGHTON MARINE PALACE AND PIER BILL [Lords]

Order for Third reading read.

Queen's consent on behalf of the Crown signified.

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

MID GLAMORGAN COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

AIDS

Mr. Hirst: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what guidance his Department has given to education authorities about educating young people on the dangers of AIDS.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): The booklet "Children at School and Problems Related to AIDS", issued in June last year, made it clear that schools have a responsibility to provide pupils with information about AIDS and its transmission. My right hon. Friend will be issuing shortly, to all local education authorities, to teachers in schools and further education institutions and to the youth service, detailed factual information about AIDS to enable young people to be fully educated on the subject and to have their questions authoritatively answered.

Mr. Hirst: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's reply. Will she assure me that such guidance as is given in schools will be given in a sensitive way that reinforces the moral guidance that children should receive in the home? Does she also agree that it is objectionable that some Labour-controlled local authorities are busy promoting gay lessons, the very sort of conduct that is leading to the AIDS cases in Britain?

Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made it clear that there can be absolutely no justification for any sort of teaching that advocates homosexual behaviour or in any sense encourages

homosexual experimentation by pupils. He is having further inquiries made most urgently of those local educational authorities which have been reported as promoting such teaching to establish the facts and to determine whether there is a case for central Government intervention. On the first part of my hon. Friend's question, of course it is the Department's clear intention to ensure that information about AIDS is given as sensitively as possible and within the context of proper family life.

Mr. Strang: Does the Minister accept that it is dangerously misleading to promote the idea that AIDS is a disease of homosexuals? I commend to her the excellent document produced by the Scottish Office as a guidance for educational establishments in Scotland. Does she recognise that it is important to produce such a document and to ensure that real information is imparted to children in the schools, not least because of some of the misinformation that is still appearing in the popular press, such as the article that appeared in a popular Scottish Sunday newspaper this weekend, which stated that AIDS could not be spread through normal heterosexual intercourse?

Mrs. Rumbold: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is quite right. The disease is promulgated not merely by homosexuals. It has now become a heterosexual disease. Therefore, it is important that the correct information about this disastrous disease is given to children and parents in a way that is clearly understood and so that there is no misapprehension about the manner in which the disease can be conveyed. It is not conveyed solely through sexual behaviour. It can be conveyed through other methods.

Mr. Key: Will my hon. Friend give guidance to teachers who, under the Education (No. 2) Act 1986, find themselves in conflict with school governors, who now have the right to say whether sex education should be taught in their schools? Under previous arrangements there would have been no problem, but now there may well be a problem, especially in Roman Catholic schools.

Mrs. Rumbold: I understand the problem to which my hon. Friend refers. It is true that, according to the new regulations under the 1986 Act, governing bodies will be able to dictate what is taught in terms of sex education to children in those schools. I reiterate, however, that we regard it as extremely important that all schools have teachers who will give clear instruction about the dangers of AIDS. This is slightly beyond the remit of simple sex education; it is more to do with health education, since it covers such matters as drug abuse.

Mr. Radice: I welcome the Minister's statement. Following the question of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), will the hon. Lady tell the House how the Secretary of State will ensure that in those schools that exercise their new right under the 1986 Act to ban sex education pupils will be made aware of the dangers of AIDS?

Mrs. Rumbold: It is true that the governing bodies have the final say on sex education. They will be guided by the head teachers. The matter of AIDS goes slightly wider than sex education as a whole. It is important that all


instruction appertaining to AIDS is taught within the context of a proper social structure and the proper social apparatus of married family life.

Pupil-Teacher Ratios

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what was the average pupil-teacher ratio in junior and secondary schools, respectively, at the most recent date for which figures are available; and what were the comparable totals in 1978.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The average pupil-teacher ratio within maintained primary schools in England has fallen from 23·6:1 to 22·1:1 between 1978 and 1986. For secondary schools there has been an improvement from 16·9 to 15·9. Taken together, these are the lowest figures in our history.

Mr. Taylor: Are not these dramatic improvements a clear sign of the Government's full commitment to the improvement of education? Within this improving general picture, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the special problems in areas such as Southend where very high accommodation costs make it difficult to recruit the additional teachers whom the Government wish the county to employ?

Mr. Baker: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. The improvement shows that we are commiting substantial extra funds to the education service. There has been a record increase in the amount that I have made available for next year. I appreciate that in certain areas there are problems with the accommodation costs for teachers. I recall that my hon. Friend's county of Essex is one of those counties that are making special arrangements and offers to help with teachers' accommodation costs.

Dr. McDonald: Is the Secretary of State aware that, according to the Essex schools handbook, the basic staffing ratio in Essex is 31 children per teacher? That is creating many difficulties in the primary schools in Thurrock. They are facing great difficulties in obtaining staff and youngsters have suffered considerably, not from a strike, but simply because they have not been able to obtain one teacher to teach the class throughout the school year. Children have been subjected to a constant change of supply teachers and part-time teachers. There has been no teaching continuity and stability. This just shows the disastrous effect of the Government's policies on education in my constituency.

Mr. Baker: I assure the hon. Lady that I visited various schools in Essex about a fortnight ago and I was impressed by the standard of performance that I saw. I very much regret that, during the past 18 months, disruption has occurred in many schools because of strike action, which has acted against the interests of education. I deplore the possible resumption of such action.

Mr. Pawsey: What will be the impact on pupil-teacher ratios of the recently announced increases in pay and the changes in salary structure? Will the right hon. Gentleman take advantage of this opportunity to appeal to teachers not to continue with any further disruptive action?

Mr. Baker: My pay proposals will improve the pay and career prospects of all teachers. I deplore the fact that leaders of some teachers' unions are threatening further disruption and stoppages in our classrooms. It is a sad fact

that the only time when the leaders of the National Union of Teachers and the National Association of Schoolmasters and Union of Women Teachers seem to agree is when they unite for disruption and unite against the education of our children.

11-plus Selection

Ms. Clare Short: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has any plans to reintroduce selection at 11-plus years.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I have no plans to compel local education authorities to reintroduce grammar schools. It is for LEAs, in the first instance, to consider how to organise school provision in their areas.

Ms. Short: I am surprised by the Secretary of State's answer. We know that he has told the press that through an expansion of the city technology colleges he is planning to reintroduce selection at 11 years. Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean with the House? Has he not learnt that selection at 11 years, which he might think is popular with parents, is not popular with the majority who are not selected? The problem with our secondary school system is that it expects to fail too many children. Dividing them into sheep and goats at 11 years is no part of the answer.

Mr. Baker: I am surprised that the hon. Lady has tabled this question because she represents a city which is Labour controlled—Birmingham—which still believes in selective schools. Birmingham maintains eight grammar schools, and I am glad to say that I have no proposals before me from Labour-controlled Birmingham to abolish them.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whether or not we have selection at 11-plus, children's education will be severly damaged if teachers resume strikes? Does he not feel that the time has come for teachers to put their action behind them and look forward to negotiating a replacement for Burnham, which is the way they should go?

Mr. Baker: As I said in reply to an earlier question, I deplore the fact that some of the leaders of the teacher's unions are again talking of disruption. I do not believe that teachers, generally, will respond to such an irresponsible call to inflict further worry upon parents, especially working parents, who will yet again be victimised if there is disruption in our schools and the children are sent home.

Mr. Ashdown: When we hear the Prime Minister's rhetoric about the reintroduction of grammar schools, when we listen to the Secretary of State on bench marks and see that he is attempting to introduce city technology colleges, does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that there are many who fear that there is a secret item in the Conservative party manifesto, which is the wholesale re-introduction of selective education? Will he categorically deny that?

Mr. Baker: I have read what purports to be the Liberal party's education policy in its document — there is nothing secret in it, because there is nothing in it at all. As far as I can see, the policy of the Liberal party and the SDP is to support the Labour party in abolishing grammar schools, though I believe that the Liberals in the city of Plymouth will vote to keep their grammar schools.

Mr. Ashdown: Yes or no? Answer the question.

Mr. Baker: To answer the hon. Gentleman's question, I am trying to improve the standards of quality of all schools.

Mr. Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend not think that one of the most depressing things about education policy is the way in which our opponents seek to misrepresent what we are trying to do? Would it not be sensible for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) to ask her neighbour, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan), for a copy of his Ruskin College speech of 1976. where he spoke of the need for core curriculum, national standards of performance and an enhanced and strengthened inspectorate to maintain those standards? Is that not exactly what we are seeking to do with our bench marks and targets of attainment?

Mr. Baker: The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) is in his place, and I pay tribute to the fact that he started this great debate in 1976.

Mr. Key: He was torpedoed by Shirley Williams.

Mr. Baker: Yes, he was not helped by his then Secretary of State, who has now joined the SDP. The right hon. Gentleman started on this road. I am glad to say that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman recently said that there would be agreement between us, and I dare say on both sides of the House, to move towards a national curriculum with the various bench marks and tests.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Core curriculum.

Mr. Baker: Core curriculum, yes. I hope that that will be achieved by a measure of agreement and consensus throughout the country.

Mr. Radice: The Secretary of State is right to say that the Labour party has been in favour of a core curriculum for a number of years. Will he tell the House who is speaking for the Government on grammar schools? Is it the Prime Minister, who suggested last weekend that grammar schools should be reintroduced, or is it the Secretary of State, who has remembered that bringing back grammar schools would mean bringing back the 11-plus? Is it his policy to reintroduce more grammar schools, or does he want to bring back selection by stealth?

Mr. Baker: I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman has now given support to my proposals for a national curriculum.

Mr. Sheerman: We have been in favour of a core curriculum for years. Look at the record.

Mr. Baker: If the hon. Gentleman had been in favour of the core curriculum he could have talked about it before I did, but he did not.
On the matter of grammar schools, looking at the history of the past 30 years, many people regret, and continue to regret, the loss of many fine schools. I am concerned with improving standards right across the system, and I intend to bring forward proposals to that effect.

Brain Drain

Mr. Ernie Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to seek to stop the brain drain from higher education institutions in the United Kingdom.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. George Walden): The Government are determined to maintain healthy and successful institutions of higher education in this country. Increases totalling more than £150 million are being provided for current expenditure in 1987–88 by universities and advanced further education institutions. Further additional funding, rising to over £70 million in 1989–90 has been offered to universities once satisfactory new arrangements have been agreed covering pay structure and performance appraisal.

Mr. Ross: Has the Minister had time to study the many articles on this subject in the press and media, particularly the article in The Guardian, which highlighted the low morale among academics due to cutbacks, freezing of posts, and lack of promotion for specialists? Does he not think that that is an indictment of the Government's policy? Is he not ashamed of the rather backhanded compliment paid to us by the United States as it draws expertise in arts and social sciences from this country to the United States? Does he not agree that shortly we will need not only a save British science campaign, but a save British arts and social sciences campaign as well?

Mr. Walden: I have done rather better than read The Guardian. I have talked to quite a few academics. They say to me in private, and some of them say in public, that the Government are doing the right thing in two major directions. The first is to recognise the inevitability of concentrating resources, particularly in science, in those departments which will become centres of excellence and well equipped. Secondly, they are wholeheartedly in favour of what the Government are trying to do in reforming the whole structure of academic salaries so as to produce a generation of scientists who will have promotion prospects and the right level of pay and who will be attracted to the new centres of excellence that we shall put in place.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend agree that at universities such as Birmingham and Aston the brain drain will continue because they are perplexed by the fact that they are doing just what this country needs people to do, which is produce technological graduates, but their grant keeps being cut? What does one have to do to get justice? What more does one have to do to please the Government when one is doing the right thing?

Mr. Walden: My hon. Friend talked about cuts in grant. Let me remind him of the overall facts. The money available for science in this country is being increased from three directions. First, there is an increase this year of £95 million in the funds for universities, and some of that, through the dual funding system, will go into science. Secondly, the Government are making available, conditional on restructuring, £40 million to improve the morale of scientific academics through higher pay.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, (Mr. Beaumont-Dark) asked about Birmingham.

Mr. Walden: I shall come to Birmingham if the hon. Gentleman will wait.
Thirdly, the science budget has gone up by 6·3 per cent. this year.
The point about Birmingham and Aston, which I have visited, is that they are doing excellent work, but, like other


universities, they are in the middle of reforms which they recognise as necessary and we do not make the judgments on how those extra funds are delivered.

Mr. Sheerman: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that when he is talking to academics he should talk also to those heads of department in science and engineering subjects, who say that the morale of the profession is lower than at any time that they can remember, and that the flood of people leaving the profession is not just a matter of quantity, but of quality, because top level engineers and scientists are going to the United States? Will he do something about the overall funding of universities and departments, which has gone down and down during the past eight years? This has been happening not only during the past year, but for the past eight years. When will the Under-Secretary of State do something about morale in our universities?

Mr. Walden: As I might have suspected, the hon. Gentleman would have done better to listen to my previous reply, which would have given him, in advance, the answer to his question. We have increased funding and we have made money available for what could be considerable increases in salaries. However, that money is conditional on certain reforms which scientists and academics know are long overdue, but which were avoided by the Labour party when it was in power.

North-West Region

Mr. Thurnham: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received about the arrangements for further education in the north-west; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Walden: My right hon. Friend has received a number of letters in 1987 from hon. Members and from local authorities about further education in the north-west. In December I met a delegation from Bolton, including hon. Members, about the possible designation of Bolton institute of higher education as an additional polytechnic.

Mr. Thurnham: In view of the importance of advanced further education to local industry, will my hon. Friend ensure that colleges and polytechnics in the north-west obtain adequate funding for next year?

Mr. Walden: We shall do better than that. I have noticed that among the general increases in funding that the Government have provided, no less than 9 per cent. has gone to polytechnics and colleges in the north-west. I am glad to add that the increase for the Bolton institute of higher education, for which I know my hon. Friend has a particular affection, totals no less than 17 per cent. Having visited that college, I should say that that increase is well earned.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the Under-Secretary of State accept that increasing fees reduces the number of students?

Mr. Walden: The simple answer to that question is to consider the statistics. Whether Opposition Members like it or not, we are living through the biggest expansion of higher education in this country since the legendary Robbins era. The fact that the hon. Gentleman has raised that piddling question shows that he is avoiding the essential fact of that expansion.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Does my hon. Friend believe that arrangements for further education in the north-west are enhanced by the conduct of the Associated Examining Board, which recently announced that, for A-levels, for example, the proper use of the English language, the ability to spell and the correct use of syntax were not important for passing examinations? Does he agree that that is ridiculous?

Mr. Walden: I am glad not to have formal responsibility for schools, or I might be tempted to say exactly what I think about the views of the AEB.

Student Grants

Mr. Spencer: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on recent progress in the review of student grants.

Mr. Walden: The review group is meeting regularly. It has received written evidence from about 100 organisations, seven of which have been invited to give oral evidence. Questionnaires have been sent to 17 foreign countries, seeking information on how their students are financed. I have visited America and plan to visit France, Germany and Sweden. To assist the review group in its work my Department is commissioning an independent survey of student's income and expenditure. I would expect the review to be completed this year.

Mr. Spencer: Does my hon. Friend agree that any new system must hold the balance fairly between the responsibilities of taxpayers, parents and students, but must also ensure that access to higher education is not made more difficult for those who come from low income backgrounds?

Mr. Walden: I can only endorse both those sentiments. I should like to add that although I am entirely against attempting to import ready-made systems from abroad, I was deeply impressed in the United States by the overall acceptance by parents, students and institutions that there is a tripartite responsibility for the maintenance of students, shared by taxpayers, parents and students.

Mr. Bermingham: Does the Minister agree that the experience of America is of a considerable number of students who must spend part of their time working in industry, stores or shops, and the rest of their time worrying about how they will ever repay the loans that they have had to take out to finance their education?

Mr. Walden: The hon. Gentleman has touched on several problems. First, he must remember that my review is not considering charging students for their educational fees, so even if we adopt a loan system there is no remote possibility of students having the same burden of debt as they have in the United States. Secondly, it is often Opposition Members and the educational community who sing the praises of the American system, which, besides having loans, somehow provides greater access than we do. That contradiction should be reconciled by the critics of loans.

Mr. Maclean: When my hon. Friend was in the United States, did he note the pride that most American universities have over the greater access to their higher education system for poor and working-class families than we have with our present grant system?

Mr. Walden: I am glad that my hon. Friend asked that question. It is a myth, which again is cultivated by the Opposition, that access to higher education is determined by the present rate of grant. The fact is—we are not denying it—that the value of the grant has decreased in recent years and at the same time access has exploded to levels which can only be compared with the Robbins period. Access is determined, not by grants, but by the quality of schools. The Labour party is now the party of low standards in schools—[Interruption.] Yes, it is. A child does not stand much of a chance of gaining entry into higher education if he has had the misfortune to be educated in Brent.

Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister aware of the atmosphere of uncertainty and anxiety among students, which is caused not only by the continuing delay of the report, but by the rumours of a loan system, the reduction in grants to universities, which could affect their course, and the Select Committee's report, which strongly supports the case of students for a proper grant system? Surely the hon. Gentleman cannot believe that all that is conducive to students making the best use of their time at university?

Mr. Walden: First, we have increased the student grant rate this year by 3·75 per cent., which is fully in line with the projected rate of inflation. I take the hon. Gentleman's point in so far as there are students who, for various reasons, are having a thin time. That is why we are having a review of the problems. Secondly, I share his point about the efficient use of our higher education system. We have rather a good higher education system, partly because it is efficient, and nothing that I shall recommend will damage it.

Mr. Greenway: Does my hon. Friend accept the unanimous view of the Select Committee that the retail prices index is no real measure of student expenditure and needs, and that a completely new student index needs to be produced to give a proper measure of student expenditure?

Mr. Walden: As I said in my initial reply, the review group, of which I am chairman, is commissioning an independent survey of student income and expenditure, but I must tell my hon. Friend that the fact that we are looking in detail at student expenditure does not mean that we are undertaking to underwrite that expenditure. The Government must take some cognisance of the strong financial pressures coming from perhaps even more deserving areas.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the Minister confirm that the Select Committee found considerable hardship among students and that it recommended that this year's grant increase should be well above the rate of inflation? Will he further confirm that he argued for the minimum increase to make it easy to introduce loans? Will he make it clear that the loans proposal will involve students in receiving part grant and part loan—about half and halt?

Mr. Walden: First, the Government are very grateful for the timely Select Committee report on student grants. I must draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Committee's terms of reference were restricted to considering the present grants system and not to finding an alternative element of funding. As the hon. Gentleman is so bold today, I draw his attention to his considerable

reticence and evasiveness when I asked him in Committee whether he supported the National Union of Students in its call for a tripling of Government grants to the phenomenal figure of £1·5 billion. It will be interesting to know whether the hon. Gentleman will be as evasive today, and I should also like to know what is the position or positions of the alliance on that estimate?

Maintained Schools

Mr. Nicholas Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will bring forward proposals for the greater independence of maintained schools from central and local government.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Schools are getting increased autonomy under the new Education Act. As it is being implemented, I shall be considering proposals for further measures to strengthen the effectiveness of schools.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my right hon. Friend accept that part of the greater independence of schools is a greater ability to get rid of bad teachers and much greater responsibility, authority and independence for the good teachers, in particular head teachers, in those schools? Will he introduce proposals in this direction?

Mr. Kenneth Baker: At the very heart of my proposals is the head teacher. I want to improve the power and ability of the head teacher, who is absolutly critical to the success of a school. Under the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Act that was passed last year, local authorities are no longer able to foist, without more ado, their choice of head teacher on a school without the agreement of the governing body. That is a major step forward. I wish to re-emphasise the importance that we attach to increasing the authority of a school's head teacher.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Secretary of State aware that when the reorganisation of the maintained sector takes place there will be considerable antipathy towards the maintenance of controlled and aided schools in the denominational sector? Will he consider the position in Leeds, where reorganisation will take place because of falling schools rolls, to ensure that the denominational schools within the maintained sector are treated fairly?

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Church schools and voluntary-aided schools have a much greater degree of independence. They own their own property and employ their own staff. I wish to make it clear that I want to see much greater control given to the governing bodies and head teachers over their own budgets. That will be the thrust of our policy after we are returned to office at the next election.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of head teachers in the country welcome the opportunity to have more control, together with their governors, over the way in which cash is spent within schools, and to cut down on the form-filling bureaucracy, of which many complain at the moment? Does he agree that it might be a good idea, in the long term, to establish some form of staff college to help with the training of head teachers in management and associated skills?

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I am attracted by such a proposal and I shall have something to say about that later in the year. On the question of the power of schools, already the budget of a secondary school, which is about £1·5 million


to £2 million, has been handed over to the school and governing body. Several schools in Cambridgeshire and Solihull have adopted that practice, and I want it to be extended right across the country.

Mr. Radice: Does the Secretary of State think that local government has any role to play in education?

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Local authorities will continue to be the main providers and will continue to have the responsibilities that flow from that. Just as the hon. Gentleman has become a convert to the national curriculum, so I am sure that he will become a convert to financial delegation to the schools.

Mr. Alan Howarth: In securing the very desirable objective of greater independence for maintained schools, will my right hon. Friend consider whether there may not be an awkward contradiction between policies of extending financial devolution and parental choice and the policy of imposing a national curriculum?

Mr. Kenneth Baker: As schools obtain greater independence in the control of their finances, they will also conform to a national curriculum that will be inspected by an enlarged inspectorate. I do not envisage any conflict between the two roles, as both are aimed at improving the quality of education in our schools.

Local Education Authorities (Capital Allocations)

Mr. Alton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received about the capital allocations made to local education authorities for 1987–88.

Mrs. Rumbold: We have received 210 such representations, including those referring to allocations for capital work at voluntary-aided and special agreement schools.

Mr. Alton: In view of the plentiful evidence that Her Majesty's inspectors of schools has given the Minister and her colleagues about the decaying state of school buildings, the massive backlog of repairs and the problems with having them carried out and about the absence of maintenance in many schools, what evidence does she adduce that capital allocations for schools are adequate?

Mrs. Rumbold: Local authorities are aware that they can put in their bids for capital allocations on the criteria that are set out by the Department, and I believe that that is what they do. They are also aware that they can use their capital receipts to top up expenditure on educational buildings. They are further aware that, within the five blocks of capital allocations, they can move between the various blocks to meet priorities. In the end, it is a decision for local authorities.

Mr. Rowe: Does my hon. Friend accept that all the arbitrary distinctions made by central Government between revenue and capital expenditure, the distinction made in education is one of the most damaging? Will she assure us that, in the discussions about allocation of school budgets and greater independence therein, that particular distinction will be considered with care?

Mrs. Rumbold: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I think that he heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State refer to financial delegation for schools and state his belief that that is something towards which we should work.

Mr. Weetch: Does the Minister realise that there would be less pressure on capital allocations if school buildings were maintained in a state of good repair? If we wanted a logo for the state of some of the buildings in East Anglia, it would be a rotting window frame. Does the hon. Lady agree that no saving is made through the neglect of maintenance and repair, because in the end remedial works cost a great deal more?

Mrs. Rumbold: Some £400 million a year is spent on the maintenance of school buildings. It is for local authorities to ensure that their schools are properly maintained. Indeed, they have been able to do that over the past few years. As a member of a local authority, I made clear decisions about the repair and maintenance of schools in my authority, and consequently we did not suffer from the same sort of problem.

Mr. Dover: Is my hon. Friend aware that Lancashire has failed to apply for funds in accordance with the Government's priorities, and by so doing has lost £4 million for this coming year?

Mrs. Rumbold: For the information of my hon. Friend and the House, I shall put on the record what has happened in Lancashire. The authority has claimed that it did not know, and could not have known, the amount available or the predicted outcome of its submission. It is true that the authority could not possibly have known what the total Government allocation would be, but it is not true that the authority did not know the priorities of the Department in allocating capital resources. Indeed, last year, 1986–87, it asked for £5 million committed expenditure for the coming year. As it happens, its submission was for £2·8 million, which it was then allocated. It cannot, therefore, be part of the Department's responsibility if the other £2 million, for which the authority did not ask, was not given.

16-plus Students

Mr. Clelland: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what percentage of young people aged 16-plus years have remained in full-time education in each of the last five years.

Mrs. Rumbold: The percentages of 16-year-olds in England remaining in full-time education in the five years from 1981–82 have been 48 per cent., 51 per cent., 48 per cent., 47 per cent. and 47 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Clelland: Is the Minister aware that the staying-on rate in my constituency is well below the national figures that she has just given? Does she agree that the reason for that is the financial pressure on young people in the poorer regions who, because they seek financial independence as well as support for the family, are forced to abandon education in their search for paid training, employment or welfare benefits? Is it not time that a system of allowances such as that proposed by the Labour party was introduced to encourage 16 and 17-year-olds to stay on at school?

Mrs. Rumbold: I do not agree that there is any need for some kind of educational maintenance allowance —[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—as has been suggested by the hon. Gentleman, because the number of 16-year-olds who are remaining in education and training has reached 90 per cent. of the numbers in that age group. I


really do not believe that what he suggests would be a very great advance. I might also say that very few other countries would agree with that proposition.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Will my hon. Friend confirm that her original figures did not refer to the several hundred thousand children who are now able to participate in the two-year youth training scheme, which offers relevant and practical training to many who failed to respond to full-time education?

Mrs. Rumbold: My hon. Friend is correct. The number of young people who are actually participating in the YTS is up to 90 per cent. of the total figures. Before the introduction of the YTS there were not anything like so many young people participating in further education.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Wareing: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the President of the Congo. I attended a service of thanksgiving for the life and work of Sir Edward Youde, former Governor of Hong Kong. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Wareing: Does the right hon. Lady agree with her Attorney-General that it would be "an unwarranted encroachment" into British sovereignty to allow American trade inspectors to inspect the books of British firms partaking of American technology? Does she agree with her Secretary of State for Defence that there would not be any unacceptable extra-territorial claims? Is it not about time that we told the United States Government what to do with their re-export controls, or is the Prime Minister content merely to fill the role of President Reagan's—[HON. MEMBERS: "Poodle".] —poodle?

The Prime Minister: We have made abundantly clear our views on extra-territorial jurisdiction. I think that the hon. Gentleman might be referring to some reports that have been published in the press about extra-territoriality, AWACS and United States export controls. It is not correct to say that the documents under discussion with the United States authorities have conceded that the United States has jurisdiction over United Kingdom companies, either in the case of the purchase of AWACS or United States-United Kingdom trade in general. In fact the reverse is true, with the proposed memorandum of understanding making it clear that for the defence articles of services forming the AWACS system—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister: The proposed memorandum of understanding makes it clear that, for the defence articles of services forming the AWACS system, the control of exports from the United Kingdom will be enforced exclusively by the United Kingdom Government.

Mr. Bellingham: Will my right hon. Friend find time today during her busy schedule to consider the recent

excellent manufacturing output figures, the best for seven years? Is it any wonder that even David Blunkett is predicting a third Tory term?

The Prime Minister: The latest figures on manufacturing output are excellent and show the increasing success of manufacturing industry, especially in export volume. I am glad to get extra support, from whatever source.

Mr. Kinnock: Yesterday the Secretary of State for Defence made a welcome statement to the effect that he does not believe that the case is made for any deployment of star wars and that the narrow interpretation of the ABM treaty is the wise one to stick to. Is that also the Prime Minister's own precise view, and does she believe that the narrow interpretation of the treaty forbids testing, development and deployment of star wars technology?

The Prime Minister: The actual interpretation of the ABM treaty is for the two signatories to that treaty, because only they have full notes of the negotiating record, which, of course, will say what the words were intended to mean. We do not have them. We are anxious for the United States to consult Europe if it is going to any accepted change within the treaty, because that will have side effects for the arms control negotiations, in which we have, of course, a considerable interest.

Mr. Kinnock: That is a rather different impression from the one given by the right hon. Lady's Secretary of State for Defence yesterday. While we naturally would welcome consultations on this vital issue, what trust can he put by the Prime Minister or anybody else in such consultations when last Wednesday the head of the United States arms control agency, Mr. Adelman, said that European allies had no business giving advice on interpretation because, to use his words, they have "no qualifications" to do so. Are those the words of somone who wants to consult, or of someone who does not mind insulting?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to or understood my first reply. The fact is that there are only two signatories to this treaty, the Soviet Union and the United States. Only those two signatories have the negotiating record. Only they, therefore, can do the precise interpretation, as it was intended when they signed that treaty. If they change what has hitherto been understood to be the interpretation, yes, we do ask for consultation, because that has a considerable effect upon the arms control negotiations that are taking place in Geneva; arms control negotiations which, I might remind the right hon. Gentleman, deal with Soviet Union superiority in intercontinental ballistic missiles, Soviet Union superiority in medium-range missiles, Soviet Union superiority in short-range missiles, Soviet Union superiority in conventional weapons and Soviet Union superiority in chemical weapons. Therefore, it is absolutely right that President Reagan considers SDI. Thank goodness people considered nuclear research before the last world war.

Mr. Kinnock: In that case, and as it is so vital, will the Prime Minister tell us whether the Secretary of State for Defence or she will have sight of that negotiating record before they tender further advice, which we all hope will be influential on the United States'attitude towards the deployment of star wars technology?

The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. The point of asking for consultation is to know the effect upon arms


control negotiations. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to look at the face of the treaty he will discover that where there are new ABM systems
based on other physical principles"—[Interruption.]
I am actually reading from the treaty. What the treaty says is:
In order to insure fulfilment of the obligation not to deploy ABM systems and their components except as provided in Article III of the Treaty, the Parties agree that in the event ABM systems based on other physical principles
were to be developed, that should be dealt with by a certain process. If it comes to deployment, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred earlier, that is a matter for negotiation. At the moment we are not talking about deployment. President Reagan and I agreed that deployment would be a matter for consultation under the treaty.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to congratulate the security services and the police on preventing a convicted IRA terrorist from entering this country through the port of Liverpool last week? At the same time, will she condemn the official Opposition, who in the same week voted against the extension of the prevention of terrorism legislation, under which that self-same protection was afforded to citizens of this country?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 helps the police to apprehend terrorists and therefore to protect the people of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] Last week the Opposition voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act. On the same day they voted against clause 29 of the Criminal Justice Bill, which would enable appeals to made against sentences, so as to have tougher sentences, and also against clause 30, which will increase to life imprisonment the maximum penalty for possession of a firearm with criminal intent. It was a bad day for law and order when the official Opposition voted against three measures like that.

Mr. Cartwright: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Cartwright: Why does the Prime Minister appear to be reneging on the position taken by herself and her Government in favour of the original narrow interpretation of the ABM treaty? Will she assure the House that in her discussions with the American Administration this Administration will be urging the President not to imperil nuclear disarmament prospects by pressing ahead with the Disneyland delusions of star wars?

The Prime Minister: If it comes to deployment, that was covered by the four points that I agreed with President Reagan at Camp David some time ago. But we are not talking about deployment at the moment. We are talking about how far the research can go under the terms of the treaty. For that there are two interpretations. I must make it absolutely clear that in terms of common sense there is no point in talking about possible deployment until it is known whether something is feasible.

Mr. Livsey: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Livsey: Will the Prime Minister comment on the fate of construction workers in south Wales, who are now daily travelling up the M4 to get work in construction in London, where there is a shortage of labour, for which they are being paid £70 a week, and then returning to south Wales, where there are 20,000 unemployed construction workers? Does she not think that this is an indication of her Government's failure to have an effective regional employment policy?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, there has been an excellent regional policy for Wales. He will also be aware that unemployment in Wales is falling. I hope that he will endorse and welcome that.

Mr. Amery: Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that on the question of the interpretation of the ABM treaty she will not be advised by such supporters of unilateral nuclear disarmament as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We will not be advised by those who support unilateral nuclear disarmament in any event.

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Mikardo: I am most grateful to the right hon. Lady for that reply. May I ask her whether, in the course of her very busy day, she can find a few minutes to have a look at the problem of Fascist entryism into the Conservative party, as illustrated by the National Fronter, who is the chairman of a constituency Conservative association not far from here, and the Tory students at Aberystwyth, who held a celebration on the anniversary of the coming to power, not of the right hon. Lady, but of a certain Adolf Hitler?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman must be hard put to it to find a question about politics for which I am responsible. With regard to his particular question, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster deals with these things in his own inimitable style.

Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the average sentence for rape at this time is three and a half years and the average time served in rape cases is 20 months? As the leader of the party of law and order, will my right hon. Friend confirm that we are fighting for minimum sentences and for the right to appeal against any absurdly lenient sentence? Does she appreciate that clause 29 does not go far enough, in that it does not make it possible to appeal in a specific case to protect the woman raped, who is stained for life?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, it is our task to see that sufficiently severe maximum sentences are available to the judges, which they are. At present the Lord Chief Justice has given guidelines which say that there have to be heavy custodial sentences for all crimes of violence. Under clause 29 of the Criminal Justice Bill we are trying to ensure that there is a further way to appeal, not against that particular sentence, but against that kind of sentence by going to the Court of Appeal so that it can pronounce upon it in open court. That in itself is a considerable step forward.

Miss Maynard: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 17 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Miss Maynard: Does the Prime Minister agree that the problems facing British agriculture are caused by our membership of the Common Market, and particularly the common agricultural policy? Further, does the right hon. Lady agree that the surpluses in western Europe are not created by our agriculture? Why should our farm workers

and farmers therefore be made redundant? Is it not high time that we moved as quickly as possible to low-input agriculture that is more labour-intensive, more environmentally sound, under our control and not under the control of Brussels?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Lady is aware, our farmers contribute considerably to the surpluses. Enormous amounts are in intervention. I entirely accept that we must pursue a policy throughout Europe that brings supply and demand more into balance.

Tamils (Removal)

Mr. Alfred Dubs: (by private notice)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his proposals to remove a number of recently arrived Tamils.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): Over the past two months, well over 300 Sri Lankan Tamils have arrived here, having travelled from countries other than Sri Lanka, carrying forged passports or having destroyed them. A further group of 64 arrived at Heathrow from Bangladesh last Friday, 13 February. They had previously been in Malaysia and the group had been organised by an agent there who had travelled with them to Dhaka. All of these had travelled on forged or mutilated passports, or had no passports, having destroyed them in transit. None had the required United Kingdom visa. They claimed asylum on arrival, but we are satisfied, on the basis of their own accounts given to immigration officers, that they have no claim to refugee status. We are therefore arranging for them to be returned to Bangladesh without delay.
The House should know that, in view of the organised nature of this attempt to secure admission by fraudulent means, my right hon. Friend and I were not in this case prepared to accept a stop on removal by right hon. or hon. Members. Nor, in future, will we be prepared to do so in similar circumstances in which immigrants seek entry here through clearly bogus applications for asylum. The right of asylum is highly prized and the Government will continue to honour the obligations they have accepted under the 1951 United Nations convention on the status of refugees. But these obligations are to people who are judged to have a well-founded fear of persecution. We cannot accept that the making of patently false claims to asylum should be used as a means of evading the immigration control. Our system of immigration control rests on the ability to refuse admission and to remove those not qualified to enter the country. A potentially disastrous gap would be created in the control if organised groups were able to secure admission in the way attempted by these groups, and the Government cannot and will not allow that to happen.

Mr. Dubs: Will the Minister confirm that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) contacted the Home Office last night when he first heard of this matter, in order to prevent the immediate removal of the group so that there could be more time for us to know what the facts are? When did these people leave Sri Lanka? By what route did they travel? What is likely to happen to them on their return to Bangladesh, where I understand they are being sent? Is the Minister absolutely certain that none of them has any claim to asylum in this country? If the Minister finds that any members of the group of 64 have such a claim, will he defer their removal while it is being investigated?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right that the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) contacted the Home Office last night. The position is that these people who formed the group arrived in Dhaka, having spent varying periods in Malaysia.
On the question of how they will be treated on their return, of course we cannot say with certainty that they

may not finally find their way back to Sri Lanka, but I have to make it quite plain that they are not refugees, that their claim to refugee status has been examined and found wanting and that the information available to the Government from the British high commission in Colombo gives no reason to suppose that people who have left Sri Lanka will be harassed or ill treated on their return or that the Sri Lankan Government would take action against them if they were eventually returned to Sri Lanka.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that his statement will be welcomed by those of us who know Sri Lanka well? In particular, is he aware that there are about 1 million Tamils who live happily with their Sinhalese and Moslem patriates in Sri Lanka and that, perhaps more importantly, there are reports from India that over 500 Tamils a week are returning to Sri Lanka? Is it not about time not only that we returned these people to Bangladesh but that we looked at the other 1,800 other Tamils who have claimed refugee status here and who would be perfectly welcome to return home to Sri Lanka?

Mr. Waddington: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said, but I do not think that this is the appropriate occasion to enter into a wide-ranging discussion of the situation in Sri Lanka. However, I assure the House once more that we have been in touch with our high commission in Colombo and I repeat that there is no reason to believe that those who leave Sri Lanka and later return there are harassed or ill treated in any way by the Sri Lankan authorities.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure the House that, when someone comes here from Sri Lanka via India, or wherever, claiming political refugee status, the port control will not return him immediately and that ample time will be provided for Members of Parliament to make representations? In the few cases where my representations have been accepted, I find it disturbing that those people would otherwise have been returned immediately and that preparations were being made for their return. That does not seem quite to fit in with the Government's intention to give refugee status to those who deserve it.

Mr. Waddington: I should like to make plain what I hope is obvious to the House: that Her Majesty's Government attach the greatest importance to our obligations under the United Nations convention on the status of refugees. However, we are dealing with a large number of organised groups of people who have arrived in this country since December. One really ought to draw a clear distinction between the person who arrives here and makes a claim for asylum and a situation like this, where it was quite obvious, from the examination carried out by the immigration officers at the port, that the claims made by these people were manifestly bogus.

Mr. Eric Forth: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is widespread concern about the patent and flagrant abuse of the long and time-honoured tradition of political asylum and refugee status in this country? Will he therefore reiterate that we shall not tolerate this sort of abuse and that anyone who seeks to abuse our hospitality will be sent back to where he came from, promptly and forthwith?

Mr. Waddington: My right hon. Friend and I feel that it is terribly important for genuine claimants for refugee status that this form of abuse should not be allowed. If we were to allow such abuse, the whole system would become discredited. That is why, with the full knowledge of our obligations under the United Nations convention, we are sure that it is right to take this action today.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is the Minster aware that the steps about which he has reluctantly informed the House today are yet a further retreat from Britain's obligations under the 1951 convention? Is he further aware that the United Nations high commissioner for refugees recommends that there is an independent appeal system among all member countries and that the British Government supported that recommendation? Today, the Minister has not only repudiated a recommendation which he claims to have supported, but has removed from asylum seekers in this country who are fortunate enough to be able to contact a Member of Parliament, the right to even have a case considered by the Minister. Yesterday I sought stops on 35 asylum seekers. The Minister cannot have considered those cases, yet he has refused the terms of the statement that he made to the House less than six months ago.

Mr. Waddington: It is not the first time that the hon. Gentleman has furnished us with long lists of names of people in respect of whom he is asking for stops. I must make the position absolutely plain. My right hon. Friend made it clear in his statement on 27 October that there would be no automatic stops on the removal of passengers who arrive here without visas. He said that there would be no change in arrangements for asylum. However, I do not believe that anyone in this House contemplated that a stop would be taken when a claim to asylum was as manifestly bogus as the claims in this case. Furthermore, we never envisaged that we would face today's problem. Large numbers of people have come to this country as a result of well-organised rackets. This is in no way a retreat from our obligations under the United Nations convention.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: While I totally endorse the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Morris) about the position in Sri Lanka, would my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the present position is that the method of arrival is far more consistent with a deliberate attempt to avoid the immigration laws of this country than with a genuine claim to political asylum?

Mr. Waddington: My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. It would be very helpful if a message were sent from this House that it is very difficult for our staff and against the interests of all genuine asylum seekers if people allow themselves to fall into the hands of racketeers, are furnished with false documents and destroy their documents—or that part of the document which, if they still possessed it on arrival in London, would reveal that the documents were forged to gain entry to this country.

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: Will the Minister confirm that communal violence against Tamils is continuing in north Sri Lanka and that organisations such as Amnesty International and the United Nations high commission for refugees have put it on record that no group of Tamils should be capriciously returned to Sri

Lanka? Is not the heart of the problem for hon. Members that, if they are to test whether these people are genuine refugees, the procedure agreed by the Home Office is worthless if the test of referral to the United Kingdom Immigrants Advisory Service—and for hon. Members to intervene—is set aside unilaterally by the Minister as he has decided that this case should not be referred? How can we judge whether these people are genuine refugees if the matter cannot be referred to an outside body such as UKIAS?

Mr. Waddington: But the hon. Gentleman is a reasonable person and he must consider the absurdity of the present position. If organised groups of this size arrive in this country and hon. Members claim that they should be treated as genuine claims when it is quite obvious after they have been examined by immigration officers that they are not genuine claims, where will that lead us? How on earth is that in the interests of these people, who obviously cannot be released into the community? We cannot grant temporary admission to people who are in no way documented and when we do not have the faintest idea who they are.
I must not be drawn into a debate about the situation in Sri Lanka. I shall remind the hon. Gentleman of our policy since 1985, because it has not been ungenerous. It is possible for somebody who wishes to claim refugee status to go to our high commission in Colombo and say that he is suffering hardship. Our policy since 1985 and the introduction of the visa regime allow entry to people who show that they are suffering exceptional hardship and who have connections with Britain. The hon. Gentleman may say that that is meaningless because nobody has been accepted, but the opposite is true. No fewer than 1,060 Tamils were granted visas in Sri Lanka in the first seven months of 1986.

Mr. John Watts: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be a warm welcome for the firm, fair and speedy action that has been taken in this case? That welcome will come not least from the many thousands of my constituents who are members of the ethnic minority community and have no sympathy for those who seek to enter Britain by fraud. They have no wish to be associated with such criminals.

Mr. Waddington: I am absolutely sure that my hon. Friend is right. It does not do community relations any good when there is widespread abuse of the control. All members of the ethnic minority communities that I have met recognise the need for firm and fair control and are as likely to be as outraged as my hon. Friend and I when that control is abused.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to take account of the fact that this is an Opposition day and that there is further business before us, with quite a demand to speak in the debate. I shall take two more questions from each side.

Mr. Eric Deakins: The Minister has told the House that a number of Tamils have been admitted to Britain because of their fear of retaliation and persecution had they remained in Sri Lanka. The British high commission does not know about these people, so how can it be certain that they will not be harassed and persecuted on their return? Can the Minister explain why people of substantial means, like the family who are


relatives of one of my constituents and who are about to be sent back to Sri Lanka, should give up their homes and businesses to go to a foreign country just on a whim? There must be something more to it than that.

Mr. Waddington: I do not think much of the hon. Gentleman's last point. Large numbers of people have been coming here over the last 20 or 30 years and they did not all say that they had come because they were facing persecution. They came here because they reckoned that they would have a better life for themselves and their families in the West than in the countries in which they had lived. For obvious reasons, we have never accepted a blanket policy of non-return to Sri Lanka. There is no doubt that some parts of Sri Lanka are more dangerous than others and that it may be dangerous for some people to return. Return will cause hardship to some people but no hardship to others.

Mr. Bowen Wells: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his firm action in this case. Is it not absolutely consistent with an attempt at fraudulent entry into this country under our immigration laws that these people came from Bangladesh and Malaysia? Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House any more about what these people were doing in those countries? That would reassure the Opposition that these people are being returned to a country to which they chose to go before coming to this country.

Mr. Waddington: I cannot throw as much light on that aspect of the matter as my hon. Friend would wish. What seems to have happened is that an agent in Sri Lanka organised the movement of these people out of Sri Lanka

to Malaysia. Either the same agent travelled with them or another agent took over the management of the racket, and this large party was eventually assembled in Bangladesh. We are piecing together the story. I assure my hon. Friend that this is the culmination of two months of some quite extraordinary events during which parties arrived from various parts of the world—and not only via Malaysia and Bangladesh.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is not this illiberality typical of the mean-mindedness of modern Toryism under the Prime Minister, the chairman of the Conservative party, who very much typifies it, and, sadly, the Home Secretary? Will the Minister ensure that the British high commissioner in Sri Lanka checks in six or eight months what may have happened to any of these men who return to Sri Lanka?

Mr. Waddington: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense.

Mr. Faulds: Just ask him to check.

Mr. Waddington: At least until this summer, the Conservative party and the Labour party were supposed to believe in firm control. How on earth one can believe in firm immigration control and allow a gaping hole to be driven through it by this sort of abuse, I really do not know.

Mr. John Stokes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the vast majority of people in Britain will regard his action as absolutely right and fair? Is it not extraordinary that the Opposition should be so out of touch with ordinary people as to hold the views that they do? Why do they not condemn this action instead of trying to support it?

Mr. Waddington: It is a mystery to me.

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

Mr. Alan Williams: On a point of order arising out of Question Time, Mr. Speaker. I waited, as you instructed last week, Sir. You will recollect, that during Question Time the Prime Minister refused to answer a question on passive entryism and the conduct of Conservative students in honouring Adolf Hitler—

Mr. Speaker: Order. What could possibly be the point of order for me in that?

Mr. Williams: If only you will allow me, to develop my point, Mr. Speaker, I shall come to the point of order.
It is that, in refusing to answer that question, the Prime Minister referred my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The whole House will recollect that. In so doing, is it not possible that the Prime Minister misled my hon. Friend and the House?
Will you confirm, Sir, in your role as Speaker, that as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) cannot and should not answer to the House for his role as chairman of the Conservative party, or are we to understand, from what the Prime Minister said today, that that position will be changed in the future? If it is not to be changed, is it not clear that the Prime Minister's answer was merely a device to dodge condemning the outrageous, unpatriotic, disloyal and Fascist conduct of elements within the Conservative party?

Mr. Speaker: I confirm—the whole House knows this—that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster may answer only for his responsibilities as Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Adjournment Debates

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, of which I have given you notice, Mr. Speaker.
Last night, at about half-past nine, I infringed the courtesies and conventions but not, as the patient and courteous Deputy Speaker said, the rules of the House. There used to be a convention and courtesy that if Ministers made statements, as the Home Secretary did—I believe that he did so in total good faith—on 3 February to the effect that
no Minister knew of the steps that the police were proposing"—[0fficial Report. 3 February 1987; Vol. 109, c. 823.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member gave me notice of his point of order, but he must not continue the debate that he attempted to raise last night.

Mr. Dalyell: There is an issue here. I was concerned—as other hon. Members might be—with a sensitive issue. You rightly say, Sir, that notice of an intention to raise an Adjournment debate should normally be given before 8 o'clock. In a serious Adjournment debate, it is clearly infinitely better that a Minister should be present to reply. However, it is another practice—I am not making a party issue of it. because Labour Whips did exactly the same thing—that if an hon. Member wishes to raise a sensitive issue, the Government will ensure, somehow, that the debate is extended.
Let me amplify that.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Where is the point of order for me? I cannot possibly be responsible for any accusations of that kind.

Mr. Dalyell: This is not an accusation. It is a fact that three Adjournment debates had been applied for by Conservative Members. I was told, very courteously as always, in your Office, Sir, that there was no chance of my getting an Adjournment debate. I accepted that. Lo and behold, what happened? By chance, I peeped in and saw that one of the Adjournment debates—on the subject of the safety of transport—was not to take place. In fact, those Adjournment debates were applied for precisely so that other hon. Members could not raise more sensitive issues. That is how Whips behave. This is not very good for the House of Commons. That is why I am asking that this matter should be referred to the Procedure Committee.
I wanted to contrast what had happened with the letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) from the Secretary of State for Scotland. There are people here today who came all the way from Glasgow to complain about what happened. Many people are deeply concerned about this issue. It is not a trivial matter. If it is stopped and gagged in the House by a subterfuge, that action should be considered by the Procedure Committee.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. On the last point, if the hon. Member believes that the Procedure Committee should consider the matter, he should send a submission to the Committee. I am sure that the Procedure Committee will be glad to consider it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one matter at a time. I confirm that I entirely support what Mr. Deputy Speaker did last night. I say to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) that in this place we proceed according to well-known rules and conventions. The hon. Member admitted last night that, for his own personal reasons, he did not observe those rules and conventions. I remind the hon. Member and the whole House that a debate is not a unilateral expression of views but an exchange of views between hon. Members and Ministers. Following last night's proceedings, I am glad to have an opportunity to reaffirm that principle.

Several Hon. Members: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take Mr. Skinner first.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The most important feature to emerge from the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and your reply, Sir, is that my hon. Friend declared to the House that he attempted to raise a second Adjournment debate. That is a common feature of our proceedings when it is likely that the House will rise before 10 o'clock. My hon. Friend then said that he was told that there were three Tories in the queue. The most deplorable aspect is that, apparently, the Tories had connived to stop my hon. Friend from expressing his view about a matter that was uncomfortable to the Government. If, for instance, one or two Tory Members queued at the beginning of a parliamenary Session to present 10-minute Bills—so that hon. Members who had stayed up all night were not able to present the first 10-minute Bill—I have no doubt that a Speaker would say that that was deplorable action because it was gagging some hon. Members. I should have thought that the Speaker's job—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I say to the hon. Member, and especially to the Opposition, that this is an Opposition day on which there are to be two important debates. I shall hear the points of order that hon. Members wish to raise, but I can add nothing to what I have already said to the hon. Member for Linlithgow.
As for what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has just said on this matter—[Interruption.] Order, please. My Office would not say that Tories or Labour Members had won Adjournment debates. It would simply say that three hon. Members had applied for Adjournment debates. I have no doubt that, if asked, my Office would say who they were. It is a question of being first in the queue.

Mr. David Winnick: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may remember that yesterday, after Question Time, I asked you whether there was any way in which certain matters of great urgency could be raised. You told me that hon. Members could apply for an Adjournment debate. I made inquiries at about 6.45 pm yesterday when it appeared that business would finish before ten o'clock. I discovered, like my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), that three Members had applied for Adjournment debates. In those circumstances, I came to the conclusion that there was no way in which I could persuade the Minister to reply to a debate even if I were to go to your Office. When you

say, Mr. Speaker, that this was not organised or that your Office would not know, I accept that entirely. What we know is that, in order to avoid us raising matters, the Government deliberately made sure that the slots were filled, and when the time came for those Members in whose name those slots were to be given an Adjournment debate, they were not here. This point, Mr. Speaker, is directed at you. Was that not an abuse, in order to prevent myself and my hon. Friend from raising a topic?

Mr. Speaker: I am in receipt of information that the hon. Gentleman was not in receipt of yesterday—how many hon. Members had expressed an interest in a subsequent debate. I gave a broad hint that there was a good chance that the hon. Member for Walsall, North might be able to put his subject in. If the hon. Member did not do that until seven o'clock, I cannot help him.

Mr. Keith Raffan: rose—

Mr. Max Madden: rose—

Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one at a time. I will take Mr. Raffan first.

Mr. Raffan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. If anybody tried to gag anybody last night, it was the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) trying to gag my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), the Secretary of State for Scotland, by not ensuring that he gave prior notice of that debate so that he could attend the House to reply. It was an Adjournment monologue, not an Adjournment debate.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reiterate the passage on page 371 of "Erskine May", as quoted by Mr. Deputy Speaker last night, that successive Speakers have deprecated an abuse of procedure to this extent by a Member trying to raise an issue on the Adjournment without giving prior notice to the Minister so that he can be present to reply, and therefore give a balanced view to the House and the country.

Mr. Speaker: I have already said, but I repeat for the benefit of the House, that two hours' notice has always been considered appropriate. If hon. Members persist in their points of order, it will take time out of the next debate, and I must not be held responsible for complaints about that.

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise for taking up the time of the House, but I think I was one of the few Members present last night—no Opposition Members who have spoken today were present then. A matter of substance arises which causes concern to the Government Back Benchers who value the Adjournment debate as a means of raising constituency matters of considerable importance.
Although Mr. Deputy Speaker made it quite clear that he could not stop the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) from abusing the procedure last night, that has left some concern among Government Back Benchers about the Adjournment debate system. Will the procedures for obtaining an Adjournment debate be reviewed? As I understand it, if one follows the normal courtesies, one is not allowed to apply for an Adjournment debate on a subject that has already been applied for by


another hon. Member. If hon. Gentlemen such as the hon. Member for Linlithgow abuse the procedure and do not observe the normal courtesies, those hon. Members who follow the procedure could be cheated out of raising matters of considerable concern. There is a matter of substance here. The hon. Member for Linlithgow, in pursuing his vendetta against the Scottish Office, has abused the procedures of the House, and he should apologise.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Is this on the same point?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Yes. Can I ask you a simple question? Do you appreciate the distinction that my hon. Friends are trying to draw, between custom and practice and rules? Is it not true that we are dealing only with custom and practice. and that any Member of the House is entitled to stand at the Government Dispatch Box and answer a debate? Any hon. Member of the House could have taken upon himself the duty of replying to the debate of my hon. Friend. [HON. MEMBERS. "No."] Yes—within our rules, that is the case. Will you confirm that that is the case, Mr. Speaker, so that Government Members who do not understand the rules, can learn?

Mr. Meadowcroft: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is this further to the same point of order?

Mr. Meadowcroft: Yes, Sir. Is not the problem the rigidity of the rule about having to apply for such an Adjournment debate before 8 pm? One understands why notice should be given, but if an hon. Member applies before 8 pm and then withdraws, the rigidity of the rule is called into question. Might not those who wanted to have that debate at least have been given some indication that a previous debate had been withdrawn? It can only have been withdrawn within minutes of having been applied for. It was certainly known at 9 pm that it would be withdrawn later.

Mr. William Cash: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it not be correct to say that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) is quite wrong? It is not just a question of the exact procedure and exact rules; it is also a question of the conventions of the House, by which the House operates. An abuse of those conventions is every bit as important as the breach of the rules themselves.

Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: On the same point?

Mr. Madden: No, a separate point.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take it later. May I deal with one thing at a time?
I confirm to the House again that this is a convention, as the hon. Member for Workington has said, and as Mr. Deputy Speaker said last night several times. The Chair cannot stop the hon. Member for Linlithgow if he persists in speaking. However, it is the convention, as I have already stated, that in a debate a reply should be given. It is perfectly possible, I suppose, for a reply to be given from the Back Benches, but when we talk about a reply we normally mean a reply from the ministerial Bench.
Later—

Mr. Alan Williams: Further to the points of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman speaks from the Front Bench, so I shall take his point of order. However, I must say that it is bound to take time from the subsequent debate.

Mr. Williams: This is important to the House. as you will appreciate, Sir. Private Members' time is desperately sought and keenly competed for within the House and it is highly valued by all individual Members. In the case of a normal Adjournment debate the name of the hon. Member appears each week and we know who is to have the Adjournment debate, what the subject is to be and the Member's constituents know who is due to speak.
In the events last night, several unnamed Members have apparently had time available which many other hon. Members would have valued. The House does not know who was responsible for that discourtesy to the House and, equally, their constituents do not know that those hon. Members lost an opportunity to make representations in the House on their behalf. Since it is not the normal procedure for applying for an Adjournment debate, is there any way in which we can obtain the identity of those hon. Members who last night failed to turn up for their Adjournment debates?

Mr. Speaker: I have already answered that. In any event, the hon. Gentleman must know that those tactics are of long standing. Whenever there is opposed private business, there is always the chance that it might be concluded more quickly than anticipated—less than three hours—and that opportunities may therefore arise for a second or sometimes even third Adjournment debate. That is exactly what happened last night. I repeat that my Office accepts applications for additional Adjournment debates on the basis of first come, first opportunity. It is not concerned with the side of the House on which an hon. Member may sit.

Refugees (Members' Representations)

Mr. Max Madden: I wish to raise a point with you, Mr. Speaker, concerning the rights of hon. Members, which arises from exchanges on the private notice question. I would ask that you look at the record and reflect upon the statements made by the Minister of State. As I understood what he said, it was to the effect that he would set aside, or even refuse, representations from hon. Members on cases of those seeking refugee status. I do not think that the Minister has the right to do that.
I would ask you, Sir, as the custodian of the rights of hon. Members to consider what the Minister said. If you believe that he was exceeding his responsibility and rights, I ask you to inform the House accordingly. I urge you to consider carefully what the Minister said, because it is quite outrageous in cases of this sort, which include women and children, many of whom fear for their lives if they are returned, that Members of this House should not have the opportunity to make representations to the Minister in the expectation that those representations will be properly considered.

Mr. Speaker: I often find myself saying from the Chair that I am not responsible for what is said from the Front Bench. I am not responsible for any views that the Minister may have expressed. [Interruption.] I am not. The hon. Member must seek other ways of seeking what he wishes.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to examine carefully the record of the debate that was held on the Minister's guidelines for dealing with immigration matters and cases. It is one of the few areas where the House has laid down specifically what a Member of Parliament can do and what

rights he has. It was quite clear from that debate that the rights of refugees and asylum seekers were not to be restricted, and hon. Members would still be able to make representations in respect of those cases. This afternoon, in answer to a private notice question, the Minister has made a statement to the effect that he is setting aside a decision of the House and preventing hon. Members from raising with his office questions relating to the need for him to consider the case of an asylum seeker.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you study the statement made this afternoon and the record of the debate concerned. I think that you will find that it is necessary for the House to have a further debate on the subject before the Minister can unilaterally abrogate a statement which he made to the House only a few months ago and which was subsequently voted upon.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not for me to police statements made or regulations that may have been laid down by the Minister. This is a matter for debate; the hon. Gentleman must take it up with the Minister concerned or the Leader of the House at business questions on Thursday.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House I will put together the three motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Audit (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Scotland) (Miscellaneous Changes) Order 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the Town and Country Planning (Compensation for Restrictions on Mineral Workings) (Scotland) Regulations 1987 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Durant.]

Local Government (Empty Council Houses)

Mr. John Powley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to oblige local authorities to make their vacant housing stock available for letting or sale.
The Bill I am presenting to the House outlines one way of reducing the number of empty council properties, by making available to prospective tenants or purchasers any local authority property, whether purpose-built or acquired, that has been empty for a period, which I would suggest should he six months. If a council-owned property has been empty or unoccupied for six months since the previous tenancy, then, provided it is habitable or can be made habitable, a person could apply to the local authority for the tenancy or the purchase of that house.
I would expect that a register would be necessary to identify those properties that have been empty for more than six months. That register would be open to public inspection and anyone seeking a tenancy or purchase could examine the register for a suitable property and make an appropriate offer. Just think about the incentive that there would be for local authorities if such a register were publicly available giving addresses of properties and the length of time that they had been empty.
The Bill would provide for some exemptions to be made and it would be right and proper to exempt from the provisions of the Bill any local authority dwelling that was in the process of being improved. Provided a dwelling was in a modernisation scheme which was actually out to tender or was being modernised, such a dwelling should not be included in dwellings available for open letting or purchase—provided, of course, that the contract was out to tender within the six months.
It must be the concern of everyone who has been a member of a local authority, as I and many other hon. Members have, or a person involved in housing organisations such as Shelter and anyone who is interested in housing generally, that we make more efficient use of the country's housing stock. That statement applies to making more efficient use of local authority housing stock, privately rented stock or owner-occupied housing stock.
We are told that in the owner-occupied and privately rented sector, over 500,000 homes are vacant; and there are many reasons for that figure. We are also told that there are around 113,300 empty council properties. Of that 113,300, some 27,100 have been empty for longer than 12 months and 13,800 have been empty for longer than two years.
May I draw attention to one or two authorities which have a particularly poor record in keeping local authority properties empty? At the top of the list, both in percentage of housing and the number of properties empty, is Liverpool, with about 7,704 empty council properties, some 11·9 per cent. of its housing stock. Manchester comes next on the list with 4,900 followed by Sheffield with 3,200, Tower Hamlets with 3,200 and Hackney with 3,100. In purely financial terms, that figure of 113,300 empty local authority properties represents over £94 million in rent not available to the respective local authorities plus about £30 million not available to the general rate fund in lost rents in any one year.
Before I speak further, I want to challenge the accuracy of that figure of 113,300. The Library supplied me with the figure for the number of empty council properites as at 1 April 1986, and that figure is confirmed by the Department of the Environment. However, I asked for a breakdown of that figure by authority and in the list supplied, which adds up to 113,300, Norwich city council is quoted as having 158 empty properties. I also wrote to my chief executive on the same subject and he quotes Norwich city council as having 447 empty properties as at 30 January 1987. The figure supplied to me for Norwich does not coincide with the figure supplied by the Department of the Environment and the Library and that makes me question whether the 113,300, which is common knowledge, could be an understatement of the number of empty council properties.
Returning to the theme of my Bill, I hope the House will agree that, whatever housing sector we refer to, we should all be concerned about empty properties, and be prepared to do something about them. It is clear that one solution will not resolve all the problems in all three sectors of housing activity, and I do not intend to deal with them. Today my purpose is to concentrate on the local authority sector and suggest a means whereby some of those properties could be brought back onto the active market instead of lying empty and idle. We all know that by the very nature of local authorities and housing management there will always be some empty properties. The void period is always there. No administration can turn round a property so that it is always occupied.
The offer of an empty property can take several weeks, and it is a fairly common experience for a particular dwelling to be refused by a prospective tenant. One of my concerns was always the number of people who claim to be in housing need and desperate for accommodation, yet at the same time refuse reasonable offers of accommodation. Some refusals cannot be avoided, but careful management, more appropriate offers to prospective tenants and a tightening up on the number of refusals could reduce the problem.
The management of some local authority housing departments leaves a great deal to be desired. Why is it that some authorities have an average period between re-lets of 20 weeks, while others can cut that down to three or four weeks?
It is clear that, within the overall number of empty properties, which I repeat is suspect, there are some properties which are about to be modernised by the local authority. I have referred to the exemptions that could be created, but it is not good enough for a local authority to say that a dwelling is going to be modernised in the future and then leave it empty for more than six months before doing anything about it.
The provisions in my Bill would provide local authorities with a strong incentive to reduce the number of empty local authority properties and reduce the length of time that those properties were empty. Some may say that lack of finance is the answer. Those who would use that argument use it whatever the problem is. They say, "It is all about money, or lack of money, and if plenty of finance was available, the problem would simply disappear."
No Government, whatever their political colour, have been able, even if they wanted to, to give local authorities unlimited sums of money to resolve their housing problems. That was not the case even in the 1970s, when


we had a Labour Government. I recall a moratorium on housing expenditure in 1976, which was followed by severe restrictions on housing expenditure. No future Government will be able to give local authorities unlimited sums of money in an effort to resolve their problems.
The point surely is that we have a problem, and that little or nothing is being done about it, in the housing sectors that I mentioned. My Bill addresses itself to the local authority sector, and suggests a modest means of getting back onto the occupied housing market, some of the properties previously left empty for long periods. Surely we must all share that objective.

Mr. Tony Banks: I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Powley) on being successful in the ten-minute rule slot. I heard the Jimmy Young programme this morning—he is the Prime Minister's favourite political interviewer—on which the hon. Gentleman gave a good account of his Bill.
Clearly, I am not against the principle—[Interruption.]—of putting people into empty properties. However, I am against the partial application of the Bill and the method that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. As one would expect from a Conservative Member, the Bill is yet another attempt to attack local authorities, especially those Labour-controlled authorities the hon. Gentleman listed. I object to the fact that he has singled out those councils.
At the moment, there are about 27,500 empty council dwellings in London. That represents 3·5 per cent. of the total local authority stock. However, in the private sector there are 93,500 empty properties, or 5 per cent. of the stock. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) said in the debate on homelessness on 10 February, the worst public sector landlord in the country, in terms of keeping properties vacant, is the Government because 6·9 per cent. of their stock is vacant.
Anybody who knows London, who walks around it and who knows its problems, will be affronted to see empty properties, whether publicly or privately owned. It is also obscene to see builders throwing up speculative office blocks when so many people are homeless in our city.
The reasons why, at any one time, some properties are empty in local authority areas, need to be stated. First, some properties are being repaired and are subject to transfer applications. People are viewing them with the possibility of moving in and local authorities are trying to ensure that the allocation of their stock are equal and fair.
However, the Government make the problems of the local authorities much more difficult. As we know from debates and replies to questions in this House, there have been continual cuts in the amounts that the boroughs have to invest in the renovation and maintenance of their stock.
Secondly, planning the repairs schedule for a year is made much more difficult by the Government's late announcements of the money that the boroughs will receive for their forward budgets.
Thirdly, the Government impose cumbersome detailed controls on every repair scheme. Therefore, properties stay vacant in London and throughout the country because they are bottled up in the Minister's Department.
No Labour-controlled local authority in London, or in the country as a whole, deliberately keeps properties vacant. However, plenty of Tory boroughs do that. [Interruption.] In Wandsworth one can see hundreds of empty properties kept empty because the borough will not put them up for letting because it is waiting to sell them off. That is why properties are being deliberately kept empty.
I advise the hon. Member for Norwich, South that some London boroughs have dramatically reduced their voids. Between 1985 and 1986 empty council dwellings were reduced by 11·5 per cent. of stock. Few inner-London boroughs, which have the most problems in our city, have more than 4 per cent. of their stock available.
I am using this debate to raise a specific point with the Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction, who looks as urbane as ever. In the debate on 10 February, he referred to the number of empty properties in Newham. He said that 2,400 properties were empty. He would not give way to me or the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) when we attempted to intervene. The Secretary of State did exactly the same thing. The reason that they would not give way was because they knew that they were deliberately twisting the figures to try to suit their argument.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must say to the hon. Gentleman that in this House we do not deliberately twist figures. He will please withdraw.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Banks: All I can say is that, if the hon. Gentlemen were not deliberately twisting the figures, they revealed a fundamental ignorance of the statistics that relate to empty properties in Newham. Perhaps I could correct the Minister's misinformation in terms of what he said in that debate. He said that there were—

Mr. Eric Forth: Withdraw.

Mr. Banks: I would not wish to offend the Minister in any way. However, I wish that when he puts forward information that is clearly incorrect, he should at least give those hon. Members with a constituency interest—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us be generous about this. In the view of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, the figures were not correct.

Mr. Banks: I never deny you anything, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw any such imputation on the Minister's honour. However, I wish that he had allowed me to put this point at the time instead of having to wait for so long.
There are 2,400 empty properties in Newham, of which 394 were being considered and viewed by prospective tenants, 401 were undergoing repairs, 612 were awaiting repairs. 19 were awaiting sales and 10 were awaiting abolition, and there were 1,089 others. That makes up the approximate figure that the Minister gave. However, of the 1,089 other empty properties mentioned by the Minister, 900 are in Ronan Point and in the Taylor Woodrow Anglian tower blocks, which are structurally unsafe. Newham has had to move the residents out of those blocks but they were included in the figures that the Minister gave so that he could try to prove that Newham


is deliberately keeping its housing stock vacant. If the Minister did not know that, he is a pretty shabby Minister indeed. That is an example of the way in which figures can be manipulated to make a particular point. [Interruption.] That may be because of where he buys his suits.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has given his illustration. Will he now say why he opposes the Bill?

Mr. Banks: I should just like to say that many London boroughs, which are continually attacked in the House, such as Brent. Islington, Haringey, Southwark and Hackney are all taking initiatives to reduce the number of vacant properties, and they are succeeding against the odds. They will certainly not be assisted by this Bill.
Those inner-London boroughs need support and resources from the Government. Instead, they are continually attacked by financial cuts and penalties and by a vicious, unprincipled campaign of media lies and distortions in the gutter press. That campaign against those local authorities is encouraged, if not co-ordinated, by the Tory party. The Bill will not assist local authorities and, frankly, I cannot support it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Powley, Mr. John Heddle, Mr. Patrick Thompson, Mr. Robert B. Jones, Mr. Peter Bruinvels, Mr. Peter Thurnham, Mr. Patrick McLoughlin, Mr. Ralph Howell, Mr. Tony Favell, Mr. Andrew Rowe and Mr. John Watts.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (EMPTY COUNCIL HOUSES)

Mr. John Powley accordingly presented a Bill to oblige local authorities to make their vacant housing stock available for letting or sale: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 April and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

Opposition Day

[8TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Disabled People

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the Opposition day, the first part of which will he a debate on the problems and needs of disabled people. I must tell the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Alfred Morris: I beg to move,
That this House, in order to achieve full participation and equality for disabled people in this country, calls on Her Majesty's Government to mark the mid-point of the Decade of Disabled Persons 1983–1992 by producing a full report on its record in relation to the United Nations World Programme of Action; to allocate now the necessary funds for full implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 instead of continuing delays in default of undertakings given in July 1986; and to produce a Green Paper on the construction of a National Disability Income which will provide adequate non-means tested benefits for disabled people who are without full-time employment and assist in offsetting the extra costs of disabled living.
This is the first wide-ranging debate on the problems and needs of disabled people in which if, as we confidently expect, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, he will speak in his still relatively new capacity as Minister for the Disabled. In extending to him the normal courtesies, may I also express the hope that he will be much more successful in influencing the Treasury's priorities than some of his immediate predecessors on that side of the House have been.
Meanwhile, I am sure that the Minister will want to join me today in welcoming to the Palace of Westminster the exhibition, which opened this morning, of the Association of Crossroads Care Attendant Schemes. The humane and deeply important work of Pat Osborne and her colleagues in the service of disabled people and their families has rightly won the admiration and support of all parts of the House.
Our motion is one whose objectives enjoy all-party support in the House and in the country. It was drafted with the sole aim of enhancing both the well-being and status of Britain's 5·5 million people with disabilities. The motion also seeks to help those who help disabled people, not least those who assist them to live their lives independently and with dignity in the community rather than in institutions.
The whole House must be concerned about this country's reputation abroad in relation to the United Nations World Programme of Action. As the Minister will know, I had the honour to chair the World Planning Group, whose work led to the formulation of the United Nations document. I did so as Britain's and the world's first Minister for the Disabled. Those who served under my chairmanship came from the north, south, east and west of the world. They were drawn from rich and poor countries alike and unanimously agreed on the way forward for disabled people worldwide. They urged upon all Heads of Government the undoubted truth that


disabled people have not only problems and needs, but also rights; the same rights as all humanity to grow and to learn, to work and to create, to love and to be loved. Above all, the World Planning group argued that the basic problem of securing full participation and equality for disabled people is not one of resources, but of political will and priorities.
Here in Britain there has been no shortage of money for the means of disabling people, but important reforms for people with disabilities are held back by the failure to provide the resources they require. At the same time, huge tax cuts have been given to the most fortunate in society and more of the same is intended. Other Governments across the world have responded with vigour and urgency to the United Nations programme of action. Whereas we were once a world leader in provision for disabled people, we now lag behind many other developed countries. Many of our leading organisations of disabled people now protest that Britain has not only stood still while other countries have advanced, but that we have gone backwards since the present Government came to power, due to priorities that help the fit and fortunate more than those in special need.
If the Minister wants to argue that we have not fallen behind other countries, let him do so in the full report that we ask for in the motion. All that we have had so far are occasional and perfunctory replies to parliamentary questions from this side of the House, including one from the Prime Minister in which she said:
The Government have kept the United Nations Secretariat informed of the development of services for disabled people in the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, 24 June 1986; Vol. 100, c. 87.]
Will this House be allowed to see the Government's reports to the United Nations secretariat? What do their reports say, for example, about our deteriorating local services; about the Government's shabby manoeuvring to defeat the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), to outlaw hurtful discrimination; and about the sombre fact that disabled people now find themselves at the back of the two longest queues in Britain, namely, those for jobs and adequate shelter?
Have the Government told the United Nations secretariat of Professor Peter Mittler's withering criticism of their policies? He has responsibility at Manchester university for training teachers of children and young people with special educational needs and is one of the foremost experts internationally in his field. Professor Mittler has said:
We had to abandon one of only four courses in this country in the education of children with social and emotional difficulties. There were no funds to continue this work…The education of children with special needs in this country, and the training of those who teach them, is a higher priority than spending £1 million a day on maintaining a presence in the Falklands, not to mention the billions of pounds we spend without question on nuclear armaments.
Again, how much have the Government told the United Nations secretariat about the view taken of their policies by the leading renal consultants in this country, who resent being forced, for purely economic reasons dictated by the Government, to choose which of their patients shall have treatment, and therefore who shall live and who shall die?

That is discrimination against disabled people at its most brutal and Dr. Tony Wing, a consultant at St. Thomas hospital, has said:
This may be effective rationing but it is scarcely humane. My colleagues in other countries think it barbaric.
What is the Minister's reaction to that devastating criticism of our standing internationally in the care of disabled people?
If the Government's reports to the United Nations secretariat seem defensible to the Minister for the Disabled, I urge him to arrange time for them to be debated. Today's debate has been provided from the limited parliamentary time available to the Opposition. We owe this debate, like almost every other debate on disability in this House since the present Government came to power, solely to the high priority given by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and his predecessors to the problems and needs of disabled people.
In the House last Tuesday my right hon. Friend raised with the Prime Minister our concern, widely shared in other parties, about the delay in implementing the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which, as the House knows, was so ably promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) after his success in the private Members' ballot. I am delighted to have him with me on this Front Bench today and must now remind the Minister that his Act reached the statute book with overwhelming support from both sides of the House. Before it was enacted, the then Minister for the Disabled made a clear statement of his intentions for its implementation. Sections 5 and 6 of the Act, at an estimated cost of £50 million, were due to be brought into force in October. These are absolutely key sections and the delay may have already affected the futures of disabled young people leaving school or further education well into the 1990s. Yet these sections, like other important sections of the Act, still lie dormant on the statute book. In fact, there is now no new date for their implementation—due, in the words of the Prime Minister, to their resource implications.
Can either the Prime Minister or the Minister for the Disabled name even one organisation of or for disabled people—or, indeed, anyone outside the Conservative party—that accepts their reason for delaying the implementation of this important Act? At a time when the Government are contemplating a give-away of £3 billion in the Budget, their defence that there are no resources to implement the Act is a grotesque misrepresentation of the facts. They stand guilty of a gross contempt of this House by their scandalous failure to give effect to its will.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's attitude is summed up in the amendment tabled by the Prime Minister and her colleagues, which states that they will implement that Act when
resources become available and as priorities allow"?
Does he agree that the words "as priorities allow" sum up the Government's attitude?

Mr. Morris: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who, though his own Act, has done so much to help disabled people and their families.
For the Government to say that they cannot afford to implement the legislation introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West, when everyone knows


that huge further tax cuts are in the offing for the richest 5 per cent. of taxpayers, is a total betrayal of disabled children, whose futures are put at stake.
The resources are unquestionably available fully to implement the Act and I urge all those many right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches who gave their support to my hon. Friend's Bill to join me now in insisting that, when Parliament wills the end, the Government must will the means. That must be especially true of legislation to help disabled people. Anyone who has spoken to a director of social services knows that the Act cannot he implemented unless the Government provide the extra resources that all of us knew would be required to give it effect.
Local authorities all over Britain, irrespective of their political colour, insist that they are already being forced to choose, not only which of their discretionary powers to use, but even which of their legal duties to disabled people can be fulfilled. It is not council leaders who are hurt by the Government's policies, but people with severe disabilities seeking to establish themselves in homes of their own, not least people with mental illness discharged after many years in hospital who find they have nowhere to live. If the Minister doubts that, he should urgently read the letter published in The Guardian on 2 February from three doctors at King's college hospital, in which they described how a homeless, mentally ill man of 32 recently suffered severe frostbite and had to have both his legs amputated. It is for people like him, among others, that my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the Opposition, much to his honour, found time for this debate.
Hon. Members on the Conservative side of the House often quote with approval the Audit Commission for Local Authorities in England and Wales. Was it not a major censure of the Government for the Audit Commission to say — in its recent report entitled "Making a Reality of Community Care"—that current policies on care in the community are
wasteful. disorganised and causing unnecessary suffering to elderly and disabled people?
The report points out that virtually all local authorities which provide social services lose grants from the Government if they increase spending in real terms, and it goes on to say:
Hence, the system used to control expenditure can penalise local ratepayers in authorities implementing Government policy and saving money for the NHS into the bargain. Thus in one authority visited that had pioneered community care for mentally handicapped people, in accordance with the Government's guidelines, heavy grant losses were being incurred because the authority was exceeding its GRE in part as a result of this policy.
How does the Minister respond to that biting criticism of a policy towards disabled people that is so manifestly self defeating?
In her oral replies last Tuesday to my rght hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition the Prime Minister made some grossly misleading statements both about the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 and about the comparative provision for the long-term sick and disabled by Labour and Conservative Governments. In an attempt to excuse the Government's failure to implement my hon. Friend's Act the Prime Minister said:
The Labour Government — [Interruption.] — faced a similar difficulty after they had passed the Chronically Sick

and Disabled Persons Act 1970. When a Labour Government later came in they took no steps to provide the local authorities with the resources to put the Act into effect.
The truth is that the 1970 Act, which I piloted through the House, came into effect on 29 May 1970, the final day of the 1966–70 Parliament. Three weeks later, a Conservative Government were elected. Failure to provide adequate resources during the first four crucial years of that legislation rests, therefore, very firmly with the Conservative Government of 1970–74. In fact, that Government were later very sharply criticised by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for having "muddied the waters" in their circular to local authorities in August 1970 about the requirements of the Act.
What of the impact of the present Government on services provided under the 1970 Act'? they have cut rate support grant to local authorities by a staggering £18 billion since they came to power, reducing Exchequer assistance of more than 60 per cent. when the Labour Government were in power to only 47 per cent. today. That is why, as Department of Health and Social Security Ministers know, local authorities of their own political colour now complain that they are being forced to choose even which of their legal duties to disabled people can be fulfilled.
Let me also recall what the Prime Minister said here last Tuesday about the comparative expenditure on benefits by the last Labour Government and the present Administration. She said:
We increased spending on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled by 75 per cent., allowing for inflation, to nearly £6 billion.
She added:
the last Labour Government … did not begin to do anything like as well".—[Official Report, 10 February 1987; Vol. 110, c. 156–57.]
Yet in a parliamentary reply to me on 24 May 1985, of which the Prime Minister must have been fully aware last Tuesday, her then Minister for the Disabled, the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) made it pikestaff plain that, in real terms, the average annual percentage increase in spending on benefits and services for the long-term sick and disabled had been significantly higher under the Labour Government than it had been under her Government.
That parliamentary reply, which the Prime Minister must have seen before misleading the House, stated that the average percentage increase under the Labour Government, in the years 1973–74 to 1978–79, was 8·3 per cent. Under the present Government, in the years 1978–79 to 1984–85, it was only 6 per cent. The figures are not mine. They are the DHSS's figures that were given to the House by a ministerial colleague, then and now, of the Prime Minister. What the hon. Gentleman's reply of 24 May 1985 showed—to use the politest language—is that the Prime Minister is guilty beyond dispute of barefaced distortion of the facts, for which there should now be a full apology to this House.
The issue is not one of political difference, but of political integrity; and it is not only the Prime Minister's reputation but that of this House that suffers if easily verifiable truth is stood on its head.
Even the Prime Minister's figures about her Government's spending require clarification. The House of Commons Library, as an independent source, disputes them as an exaggeration; so do the disabled themselves,


whom the right hon. Lady robbed in 1980 of the important link forged by the last Labour Government between cash benefits and average industrial earnings, the loss of which has incontrovertibly kept their incomes much below what they would otherwise have been. The Prime Minister's self-congratulatory words of last Tuesday should be compared by the House with a document published by the Disablement Income Group — DIG — about her Government's record, entitled "Disastrous Years for Disabled People". That bluntly sums up exactly what so many other organisations of the disabled think about the right hon. Lady's priorities.
Right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches take legitimate pride in the fact that the last Labour Government's spending on cash benefits for long-term sick and disabled people more than trebled in five years. It was a wholly unprecedented increase. Again, our spending on centrally provided services almost trebled. In real terms, these were very substantial achievements in economic conditions of great difficulty. We quite deliberately singled out the disabled for special help and went further in providing new benefits than our manifesto commitments.
Even when public spending in almost every other area had to be cut back, there was rapidly increasing expenditure on new help for disabled people. The trebling of expenditure on cash benefits made many important advances possible, but it was not nearly enough. As I said at the time, there remained a long unfinished agenda of unmet need and, in particular, the need to construct a national disability income that would provide adequate, non-means-tested benefits for disabled people unable to find work and offset the extra costs of disabled living.
The demand for a comprehensive new income scheme for disabled people, which is subscribed to by hon. Members of all parties, has now been given a strong new impetus by an important new document from the DIG. It was launched here in the Palace of Westminster, at a presentation arranged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), on 27 January. The document shows that, at present, one very severely disabled person can receive just over £100 a week less than another with identical disabilities and family commitments, if his or her disabilities are the result of an accident at home rather than at work. A third person, with identical disabilities, can receive a further £25 less if he or she became disabled before contributing to national insurance. That is the nub of the case for our call in the motion for a Green Paper on the construction of a national disability income.
Even if it is argued that we cannot yet afford the financial support that disabled people need — unlike other European countries, notably the Netherlands and Scandinavia—it is now essential at least to make some progress towards meeting that need. To be meaningful, such progress must be towards a scheme based on meeting the twofold financial effects of disability: loss of earnings, which may be total or partial, and extra living costs. As there are two financial effects of disability, we need two kinds of benefits: an income maintenance element and one that will meet the extra costs of disabled living.
Any change at variance with these principles makes the social security system less satisfactory for disabled people.

For example, we must avoid repeating the mistakes of the severe disablement allowance, which illogically imposes the twin test of incapacity for work and degree of disability on what should be a straightforward income maintenance benefit. Such nonsense—I use the DIG's description of the allowance — would not have arisen if the Government had been working towards a national disability income. The so-called "reform" of the supplementary benefit system provides other examples.
On 2 April 1984, announcing the social security reviews, the Secretary of State said that disablement benefits were not to be tackled. He said that reliable information from the new survey by the OPCS was essential for the longer-term development of the Government's disablement benefits policy.
Yet in fact the right hon. Gentleman did not wait for the results of the survey before tampering with important benefits for disabled people. The first adverse effect is that the most severely disabled will lose financially. It was only when we pointed this out to the Government that they announced a second disablement premium. As the Minister must know, however, that premium does not solve the problems of the most severely disabled. The criteria that the Government have chosen — even the latest criteria — are a confusing nonsense and the premium remains a hasty, ill-conceived reaction to our well-founded criticism of the original proposals. Many severely disabled people will suffer badly in consequence and, here again, the hardship inflicted upon them would not have arisen if the Government had been working towards a national disability income.
The second adverse affect of the Government's new Act is that disabled people in need will in future have to suffer the indignity of pleading both poverty and disability to get help from the social fund. Ministers have said that disabled people will not have to prove individual requirements on such intimate grounds as, for example, incontinence or the need for frequent baths. Yet the social fund removes all rights to any payment and thus requires every intimate detail of disabled applicants' lives to be discussed by the social fund officers and everyone with whom they liaise.
The disablement cost allowance of a national disability income would protect disabled people from those indignities, but the disablement premiums and the social fund are both at variance with that objective. They take us further away from a sound, coherent and rational system of benefits for disabled people. That is why we now call, with the backing of all the organisations of disabled people, for a commitment from the Government at least to work towards a national disability income.
For their part, the British public accept the need for a national disability income, as the findings of a Gallup poll commissioned by the DIG amply demonstrated in January of this year. Asked about the adequacy of benefits paid to very severely disabled people, 83 per cent. of those questioned said that the incomes of people who are born disabled are completely inadequate. Of those questioned, 76 per cent. thought that benefits for disability should be the same regardless of cause, while 67 per cent. were prepared to pay more in tax to meet the costs of a national disability income.
Those willing to pay more tax included 66 per cent. of Conservative voters, 67 per cent. of Labour voters and 72 per cent. of Liberal-SDP alliance voters. That is the extent


of public support for a national disability income. It very strongly backs the DIG's approach and totally vindicates our call in the motion for a Green Paper.
What the British public recognised in their response to this important survey of opinion is that most people with disabilities have to face a higher cost of living than other people, and do so with lower than average incomes. The extra help that their organisations seek for disabled people is not for the provision of luxuries, but to achieve equality of opportunity and social fairness for people for whom disability is now all too often another word for poverty and humiliation. There is ultimately no gain in depriving the disabled of the help they need to live independent and fulfilling lives; for the costs of driving them into institutions can be very much higher than those of adequate benefits and community support services.
Not once in my speech, Mr. Speaker, have I used the word "compassion". The late and respected Sir Neil Marten—who among others assisted me throughout the proceedings on the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970—used to say, even then—and I most strongly agreed with him—that disabled people were fed up with compassion. They want understanding; they want respect for their abilities and for their social worth; they want the status that an acceptance of their rights can confer, so that they can he a part of and not apart from society. Above all, they want more equality and social justice and, as the Minister must know, they want our motion and not the Prime Minister's shoddy amendment to be approved by the House today.
I commend the motion to the House.

5 pm

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. John Major): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
congratulates the Government on its continuing commitment to improving provision for disabled people; draws attention to the increase in annual spending on their social security entitlements of £2·5 billion in real terms since 1978–79 welcomes improvements in their tax position and employment opportunities; reaffirms its commitment to the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 with implementation as resources become available and as priorities allow; and welcomes the survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys into the numbers, circumstances and needs of disabled people as a basis for a comprehensive review of benefits of long-term sick and disabled people.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) has raised a number of important matters and I will respond to his detailed points in due course. I should say at the outset that I welcome this opportunity to discuss provision for disabled people because it is an exceedingly important subject, and one to which the Government have given priority and will continue to do so. In his opening remarks the right hon. Gentleman referred approvingly to the Crossroads care attendance scheme and to Pat Osborne and colleagues. I fully endorse the comments made by the right hon. Gentleman. The Government have encouraged such schemes by providing direct financial assistance to the national association and my hon. Friend the Minister for Health and I take a considerable interest in their very worthwhile activities.
It might be helpful to put this debate into perspective. There will be general agreement in the House—the right hon. Gentleman touched on this briefly today and has done so more widely on other occasions — that in the

past 15 years or so there have been enormous advances in the recognition given to the legitimate needs of disabled people. Much may remain to be done, but much has been achieved. The right hon. Gentleman's own Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 was an early and very important milestone. There were substantial — in many ways radical—improvements in social security provision for disabled people during the 1970s under successive Administrations. I refer in particular to the introduction of attendance allowance, mobility allowance and invalid care allowance. In more recent years, the Government have sought to build upon those achievements by abolishing the household duties test, extending the invalid care allowance, taking the mobility allowance out of lax, and so on. All those developments are welcome.
The right hon. Gentleman was critical of the Government's record in some respects, but I do not accept either his figures or many of his contentions. Social security expenditure on cash benefits for long-term sick and disabled people has increased dramatically since 1978–79—by about £2·5 billion, of which £1·75 billion is attributable to the increase in the number of beneficiaries, which is itself welcome because it implies a wider take-up, and £750 million to increases in the value of benefits. There is wider entitlement and better take-up. We have repeatedly stated that care of disabled people is a priority concern, and I believe that the scale of expenditure and resources shows that we mean what we say in that respect.
In the NHS, special priority has been given to services for elderly people and for mentally and physically handicapped people. Concern for mentally ill people was re-emphasised by the publication of "Care in Action" in 1981. There have been improvements in relation to access and transport and the voluntary code of good practice in relation to employment. Last year more than 77,000 disabled people were placed in work or on the community programme through the MSC. The list that I have given is illustrative, but by no means exhaustive.
Local authority spending on social services has increased by about 20 per cent. in purchasing power in real terms during the period of this Government. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the whole question of finance for community care is currently being considered in depth by Sir Roy Griffiths' high-level inquiry. Whatever other points of contention there may be, no one can doubt the scale of progress made—nor, I should add, can we be complacent about what needs to be done, and it is to that proposition that I wish to direct most of my remarks on this occasion.
I know that many Members are deeply interested in progress on implementing the recommendations of the McColl report on the artificial limb service. Some of the recommendations raise significant and difficult issues—most notably, whether the services should in future be managed outside the DHSS—and I hope to announce decisions on that important matter very shortly.
In advance of that structural decision, I wish today to announce some improvements to the wheelchair service. I am anxious to enhance choice in the range of wheelchairs provided. As the House may know, we recently introduced brighter colours to supplement the standard black and grey chairs. In addition, we introduced two new powered models for indoor use which are both more attractive in appearance and have more sophisticated control units and


more reliable batteries. These are small but welcome innovations, and we have decided to place particular emphasis on several further developments.
The McColl working party singled out a number of aspects of the wheelchair range which in its view require specific attention and I wish to announce decisions on three of those matters now. The first was the provision of a low cost chair for occasional users whose basic requirement is for a light, manoeuverable pushchair. We agree with that and have therefore purchased two types, which we have issued to users so that we may assess their suitability and acceptability. Following those trials and any modifications that may be necessary, we shall add such a chair to the range for general use.
The second area of concern to the working party was the range of chairs for children. McColl felt that the present range provided by the wheelchair service was unsatisfactory. Again, we agree. We have therefore decided that the wheelchair service should take the initiative and develop a new chair specially designed with the needs of children in mind. We shall focus attention particularly on adaptability, extra support, lightness, ability to fold and—this, too, is important, particularly to young people — overall appearance. Work on development has already commenced. We intend that introduction of the chair should be as rapid as possible, and I assure the House that we will push it speedily.
McColl also felt that the needs of younger active disabled people requiring a wheelchair to enable them to participate in sporting activities were not well catered for. Again, I agree. The development and supply of such a chair will cost money — perhaps substantial sums. As this cannot at the moment be at the expense of other users, we have directed that further improvement in the efficiency of supply and repair of wheelchairs generally should be achieved and that the funds released should be used for this purpose. From the inquiries that we have made, we are confident that this can be done.
There is a further point. The provision of a wheelchair is often only one step towards mobility, especially for the most severely disabled. The supply of accessories is vital, too, with seating perhaps the most important element. Correct seating is essential to enable severely disabled children and adults to use a wheelchair. Hospital treatment — sometimes to correct serious postural difficulties—can result from incorrect provision. In the past there has been some doubt about the extent to which the wheelchair service should provide seating. I wish to remove that doubt. We have now decided that the wheelchair service will extend its responsibilities to include the supply of special seating support for those severely disabled wheelchair users who need it. This innovation will take effect immediately.
I am conscious that there are other matters relating to wheelchairs about which I have no comment to make on this occasion, but I hope that my observations on those minor matters will be generally welcomed by the House. As I said earlier, nobody can be complacent about what remains to be done to improve the quality of life for disabled people. The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) —who I believe is later to make his first and welcome appearance as Front Bench Opposition spokesman on this subject—accurately identified some of those needs in the Bill that he introduced last Session,

which is now the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act. We entirely accept the principles of that Act and we are at one with the hon. Gentleman in wanting to see it in operation.
The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge, as he has done on previous occasions, that the Government put in a considerable amount of effort — not least the former Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) and the former Minister with responsibility for the disabled, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) — to improve the detailed provisions of that legislation. The hon. Member for Monklands, West, for his part, was generous enough to acknowledge on more than one occasion—not least on Third Reading and on Report—that parts of the measure had significant resource implications. My hon. Friends made it clear that those provisions could only be brought into effect in stages. I think that that point was well understood by the House at that time and the Government's position has not changed in any way since then.
Some things, however, have changed—

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: What about section 7?

Mr. Major: I am sure that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), with his record on matters concerning disabled people, will be able to catch the eye of the Chair if he wishes to speak in the debate. The House will look forward to hearing from him then.
Since Royal Assent, the local authority associations have taken a more detailed look at that Act in the form in which it reached the statute book and have revised their cost estimates sharply upwards. On the basis of the latest estimates, the total annual cost of the Act might amount to around £150 million rather than the £100 million that was generally expected during the passage of the Bill. I should emphasise that that position is still fluid. The local authority associations are still refining their estimates and we are discussing the figures with them.
We are not, therefore, seeking to be unfairly dilatory in the implementation of the Act. There has been continuing contact between my officials and the local authority associations and I shall be meeting the associations myself a week today to review progress. I also hope to arrange a meeting shortly with representatives of the voluntary organisations who have asked to see me on the subject. I shall be happy to hear what they have to say and to discuss with them the precise circumstances of implementation as they see them. I hope that my meetings with the local authority associations and with the voluntary associations will be fruitful.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: I can see the problem and I can see the value of the discussion. When the Minister has had the discussions and the sums have been fixed—I assume that this will be in the not too distant future—will he tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer that some of the billions to be given away would be going to a good cause if they were spent on the implementation of my hon. Friends Act?

Mr. Major: The hon. Gentleman's long-standing concern is well known, and he may have knowledge of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Finance Bill proposals


which I as yet do not have. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will read carefully what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Subject to the outcome of my discussions with the associations next week, it remains our hope that sections 4, 8, 9 and 10 of the Act can he implemented by 1 April. I am also optimistic that it will be possible to implement section 11 during the course of the year.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe referred—understandably, as I know his concern in the matter—to the important sections 5 and 6. I also wish to examine whether we shall be able to make progress on those sections which deal with the identification and assessment of disabled school leavers. As the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Monklands, West will know, the local authority associations originally believed that implementing those sections would not have a significant cost but I must tell the House that they have now, rather belatedly, changed their minds. They now estimate that the annual cost of those sections would be between £30 million and £50 million. That is one matter that I wish to examine with them urgenty at the meeting next week. The effect is that the cost of the Act may be up to 50 per cent. greater than we believed a year ago.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that the full cost of implementing that Act will be reached only over some years, as the provisions work through, particularly with regard to schoolchildren? Will he also accept that in a letter of 16 February to hon. Members, the Association of County Councils said:
The Association still believe that the whole Act should be implemented at the earliest possible date and that adequate resources should he made available for this to be done.
That is the standpoint of the association.

Mr. Major: I am fully aware that that is the association's standpoint, and it is one matter that I look forward eagerly to discussing with the association. On the cost profile, the hon. Gentleman is right. The cost will build up over a period. How rapidly it builds up is one of the matters that one may wish to examine.
The right hon. Member for Wythenshawe has suggested in the past that at any rate section 5(i) and (ii) might be implemented so that disabled young people leaving school in 1988 and 1989 can be identified. That may be difficult, as even that limited implementation might have substantial actual and potential resource implications for local authorities. However, I undertake to pursue that point specifically with the local authority associations in my discussions with them next week.
I must make it clear to the House that we think it would be irresponsible to bring the Act into operation before we are clear about the costs and are satisfied that local authorities are able properly to implement the Act. We wish to ensure that when the commencement orders are made local authorities have the resources to implement the Act properly. I know some of the frustrations that the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe must have suffered when some parts of his Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 were not implemented as he had hoped during the passage of that measure.
I should make a further point which I want to make on the general issue of implementation. The hon. Member for Monklands, West made it clear, implicitly on Second Reading and explicitly in his usual generous fashion during the final stages of the Bill in the House, that he

accepted that it would be necessary to consider implementation of the Bill by phasing. I understand entirely that on this matter hon. Members have deep and genuine concerns and that they have differences about the tempo at which phasing can realistically take place. The Government are not able to commit substantial resources to the implementation of the Act until we are sure that they are available. Phased implementation was implicit at the time the legislation was passed and it is barely a year since the Bill was introduced into the House. I repeat that we support the principles of the Act and that, when we can, we shall seek to implement it in the way that I have described to the House.

Mr. Wareing: In regard to the Act introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), surely it is imperative that section 7, which deals with psychiatric patients discharged from hospital. should be implemented soon, so that those people may receive direct assistance from local authorities and from area health authorities. Lack of resources cannot be made an excuse when we are approaching 17 March and the Budget. The Minister may not be au fait with the details of the Budget, but as a Minister in the Government he should have an input to ensure that funds that could provide for discharged psychiatric patients do not go to rich taxpayers.

Mr. Major: Whatever the hon. Gentleman may think, he will know that under successive Governments the details of the Finance Bill are predominantly a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Chancellors are aware of the concerns of Ministers, but I have nothing further to say on budgetary matters.
On the United Nations decade of disabled persons, the Government have drafted a response to the United Nations questionnaire which was addressed to all member states, reporting progress on the implementation of the world programme. We propose to consult RADAR, the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation arid the British Council of Organisations of Disabled People before the final version of the response is sent to the United Nations. That document will not be suitable for formal publication but we shall make copies available to anyone who is interested and we shall place a copy in the Library of the House. As the document will make clear, the Government's record on implementing the proposals in the world programme is good. My hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary may elaborate on that when he catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I am acutely conscious that a number of hon. Members are keen to contribute to what will now be a rather short debate and that there are many important matters that time does not permit me to deal with. In particular, I have said little about the important aspect of cash support, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred when he gave his views on a national disability income. The Government have over a period made their position clear on that. A major survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys into the numbers, circumstances and needs of the disabled people is well under way. When the results are available, they will provide the basis for a comprehensive review of disability benefits. That is the Government's position and I think it is well understood in the House.
I have sought to strike a positive note. I share with the right hon. Gentleman the view that disability, whether


physical or mental, can be a considerable and crushing affliction for those whom it strikes and for those who care for them, but a great deal can be done to alleviate its effect and help disabled people to play a full part in society. As I have outlined, a great deal has been done by successive Governments of all parties, individual Members of the House, the caring agencies, professional people, voluntary organisations, relatives, friends, neighbours and the wider community.
That work will continue. It will do so in small ways, such as the announcement I made last week on invalidity benefit, which will remove a financial impediment to disabled people serving as elected councillors. It will continue in larger ways, with the McColl report. It will continue with the OPCS survey and the consequent review of disability benefits.
My hope, my expectation and my ambition—and I think that I carry the right hon. Gentleman with me on this — is that we can consolidate and build upon the progress that has been made. We need to be realistic about the pace of it; I appreciate that it may sometimes seem infuriatingly slow, but I hope that we are in a position to reassure the House generally and those who are unfortunate enough to be disabled that much progress has been made, that progress is certain and that it will continue.

Mr. Jack Ashley: It is significant that the Minister failed to respond to the challenge of my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) about the relative records of the Labour Government and the present Government. We have repeated those figures in every debate about disability since this Government took office, and they have not been repudiated. The Minister spent a great deal of time talking about wheelchairs. This debate is not about wheelchairs; it is about the veracity of the Prime Minister, nothing less.
The Minister knows that I am concerned with the McColl report and with wheelchairs, but today we are concerned with statements made by the Prime Minister in response to the, in my view, brilliant attack by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Last Tuesday my right hon. Friend attacked the Prime Minister and she made a categorical response. The Minister today has failed to retrieve the Prime Minister's error last Tuesday when she boasted that the long-term sick and disabled have been given a 75 per cent. real increase in benefit. She tried to convince the House that disabled people have been treated generously by the Government.

Mr. Major: I do not want to turn an occasion like this into a party political bashing session, but I must draw it to the right hon. Gentleman's attention that I quite specifically, in the early part of my speech, drew the attention of the House to the very dramatic increase in cash benefits for long-term sick and disabled people, from about £3·5 billion to £6 billion during the period of this Government. That is a substantial increase indeed. It was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and it is not a matter for dispute. It is an unchallengeable fact that that increase has taken place.

Mr. Ashley: If we are speaking of unchallengeable facts, we had better go over again the facts that we have put

forward before. The first fact is that spending by the Labour Government on the long-term sick and disabled more than trebled in five years. The second fact is that the percentage increase in spending on long-term sick and disabled people rose by 8·3 per cent. between 1974 and 1979 but the increase in spending on long-term sick and disabled people under this Government has been 6 per cent. That is 6 per cent. compared with 8·3 per cent. I did not hear the Minister deny those facts for one moment.
It was the Prime Minister who made the party political point last Tuesday, and that is why we are challenging the Government on this issue. I can be as constructive as the next Member, but the Prime Minister was wrong. The Prime Minister misled the House of Commons and I believe that disabled people want those facts to be refuted, because the Prime Minister was totally wrong, and they know that she was wrong.
What about the Prime Minister's statement that there has been a 75 per cent. real increase in benefit? Let me explain it to the Minister. The vast majority of the people concerned live on invalidity benefit, and that basic benefit increased in real terms by a mere 4·5 per cent. from November 1978 to July 1986. So, during eight years of this Government, the increase in benefit has been a fraction over 0·5 per cent. per year. Some generosity there! Over the same period, net earnings for the top taxpayers increased by an astronomical 202 per cent. according to the Incomes Data Service top pay unit. That vast discrepancy alone will demolish the myth that the Government favour disabled people. It shows that disabled people are given a very low priority by this Government. That vast discrepancy conforms to the unpleasant face of capitalism and the policies derived from it.
If the basic invalidity benefit has risen only 4·5 per cent., from where did the Prime Minister get the 75 per cent. figure? Perhaps I can explain for the Prime Minister's enlightenment. The number of people receiving invalidity benefit has risen by over 40 per cent.; the number receiving attendance allowance has risen by over 70 per cent.; the number receiving mobility allowance has risen by well over 100 per cent. So more disabled people are receiving benefits — which are their legal entitlement. That has nothing whatever to do with the Government's generosity. They are simply receiving their legal entitlement. The Prime Minister responded to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition by saying that her Government had given a 75 per cent. increase to disabled people. That was a grossly misleading statement to make to the House of Commons.
Have the Government had the opportunity to be generous? Of course they have. They have had the biggest opportunity in history to be generous to disabled people, because they have had a fantastic oil bonanza. They have had the biggest windfall of all time. It has been a dream of El Dorado come true. For the first time ever a British Government have had the resources for a national disability income that is both equitable and comprehensive. They could provide a new deal. They could provide a fair deal. They could, in fact, give disabled people the ideal—a national disability income, which has been spelt out. But the Government have refused to make a commitment to, let alone introduce, a disability income even though, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe rightly said, the present system is unjust and unfair.
The Minister's excuse in his speech a short while ago was that the Government were awaiting the result of the OPCS survey. My right hon. Friend said that the Government did not wait for the result before tampering with benefits. I want to criticise my right hon. Friend there, because the word "tampering" is inadequate and far too weak. The Government have not simply tampered with benefits; they have actually by their recent Act, actually cut the benefits of some of the most severely disabled people. We all know that that is what they have done. Why did they not wait for the OPCS survey before cutting the benefits to some severely disabled people? If that survey prevents the Government from helping disabled people, why did they wait for five years after taking office before commissioning it?
The Minister mentioned—the Prime Minister often mentions this — the value of the mobility allowance. Time and again, when challenged, the Prime Minister has said, "We have increased and improved the mobility allowance." I am sick of hearing about the mobility allowance. The increase is presented like a jewel in the Government's crown, but the 116 per cent. improvement in the cash value of the mobility allowance has to be compared with the increase in the price of petrol, which has gone up by 111 per cent. The mobility allowance has done little more than match the increase in the price of petrol. I hope that the Government will not continue to boast about the mobility allowance.

Mr. Greg Knight: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House who made the mobility allowance free of tax? Was it not the Government in 1982?

Mr. Ashley: I spoke a moment ago about a jewel in the crown. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to deal with a tiny, piffling increase as compared with the jewel that I talked about, I shall give him that concession. I shall readily acknowledge that the Government did that. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to criticise the Labour Government, that is fine, but no Conservative Member has been able to attack the basis of the case that I make. The Government have failed in any substantial way to increase the value of the mobility allowance. I have explained what has happened. The hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight) has no strong case on that point.
The Government have refused our request to extend the mobility allowance to three deserving groups. They are, first, mentally handicapped people; secondly, autistic people; and, thirdly, those who are both deaf and blind—not those who are deaf or blind. We have repeatedly put this point to the Minister. The present ruling is that if people are unable to walk they will get the allowance . These people can walk, but of course they cannot walk unaided. Because of their disability they must be helped, and they should get the allowance.
The Minister is one of the best Ministers in the Government. He is a humane person, but he is not able to administer a proper policy because of the people who run the Department. They are squeezing him. He will help if he can, but the Government refuse to extend the allowance to the people whom I mentioned. It is quite wrong for the Government to do that.
The Minister mentioned the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act. That Act was passed for two reasons; first, the skill and determination of my hon. Friend the Member for

Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke); and, secondly, the agreement and support of the Government. My hon. Friend's skill and determination were genuine. The Government's agreement and support were bogus. Their support was purely for public relations reasons. They sought credit for endorsing the Bill, but have refused to provide the cash to implement vital sections of it. That is bare-faced Tammany Hall manipulating and manoeuvring. It has further damaged the Government's reputation, if that is possible. A date has been given for implementing just three of the Bill's 11 sections. All of them require little expenditure, and as a consequence of the Government's decision, thousands of young disabled people will suffer.
I assure the Government that we intend to monitor the deprivation of disabled people, not only today, but on Budget day, when billions of pounds will be handed out by the Chancellor.
Jobs for the disabled are more than a source of income. They are symbols of cherished independence. The Government's record on jobs for the disabled is appalling. The latest figures show that in spring 1985, 1,764,000 economically active people were limited by health problems, and no fewer than 412,000 of them were unemployed. Those figures, provided by the House of Commons Library, were taken from the Employment Gazette 1986. They show a shocking rate of unemployment of 23 per cent. for disabled people.
The Government have failed effectively to tackle unemployment among disabled people. They have failed to make the quota system work. They have condoned the breaking of the law by employers and have refused to support the splendid initiative that was taken by the European Commission. They have undermined proposals to improve employment prospects for disabled people. The European Commission's document, which was first-rate, called for the enforcement of quotas as well as antidiscrimination legislation, but after discussions in which our Government played a prominent part, the final European Council's report was a badly watered down version of the Commission's draft document. It merely mentioned establishing rights in accordance with national laws and practice and the need to avoid dismissal on the ground of disability. The proposal to enforce quotas was scrapped.
The Germans are far more realistic than we are. They are far more generous to disabled workers. Their quota system is effective. It is backed by levies and tough sanctions that secure 80 per cent. enforcement. The British Government merely put their efforts into the voluntary system—that is, the code of practice mentioned by the Minister. I support the code of practice, and I back the Government in their efforts, but persuasion should be a complement to, not a substitute for, policy. The figures show that the Government have failed to find adequate jobs for disabled people.
Before the Prime Minister boasts of helping the disabled, she should study the facts. She should see the miserly limitations on help in the context of vast handouts to others. She should recognise the Government's failure to rise to the challenge. She should talk to disabled people and discover the extent to which the Government have failed them. Disabled people have been badly let down. I want no lectures from the Government about making party political points, after the Prime Minister has made party political points at the Dispatch Box. If she seeks to intrude on disability and make party political points she


must expect the answers, and the answers are devastating to the Government. The Government stand condemned for their attitude to disabled people. Disabled people need a better deal. They will not get it under the present Government, but they will get it under the next Government.

Mr. John Hannam: I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) referred to the German quota scheme, because it gives me something with which I can agree. I have to be careful what I say about the right hon. Gentleman, because he is the chairman of the all-party disablement group. He wears the crown, though there are not many jewels in it, and I am his menial servant, the secretary. I do not intend to follow up some of the points that he raised in what I consider was a rather griping speech in, generally speaking, a non-partisan type of debate on disablement.
I welcome this opportunity to debate the needs of the disabled, because I believe that the record of this country is unparalleled. I find that my view is reiterated whenever I travel abroad to conferences on the rehabilitation of the disabled. I congratulate the Government on the constant and steady progress that has been made in dealing with the needs of the disabled. Hardly a week goes by without further announcements by my right hon. and hon. Friends, not only in the Department of Health and Social Security but in other Departments, about some form of increased help for the handicapped members of our society.
Only this week, two further changes were made. The first was to ensure that the disabled would not be deterred from serving in local government. The second was to increase the benefits for the disabled and the handicapped who are living in residential care and nursing homes. Today my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled has made further important announcements about the implementation of some of the recommendations of the McColl report on wheelchair provision. In thanking him for making those announcements, may I add that both I and other hon. Members hope very much that something will be done about providing an indoor-outdoor powered wheelchair for the very seriously disabled.
There are always grounds for pressure and even criticism because of delays, but my experience over the last 16 years of working for the disabled is of constant improvements year after year by Government after Government, with the frontiers being steadily moved outwards. When I look at the range of benefits and facilities that are now available, about which we have our debates and discussions, and at the range of facilities that are available to the sick and the disabled I am immensely proud to have been part of that process.
Therefore, I resent the attempts in recent weeks by the Leader of the Opposition, who started the ball rolling, to make party political capital out of the recently enacted and very much desired Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 of his hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). That Act was a major step for the hon. Member and also for the Government who agreed to support his private Member's Bill, because it has huge resource implications, I was a sponsor of the Bill and fought as hard as any hon.

Member could do to help its passage through Parliament. The Act of the hon. Member for Monklands, West represents a major legislative step forward and takes the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 through to its logical conclusion—to the community.
I fully support the hon. Member's Act, but we cannot kid ourselves that it is inexpensive legislation. When fully implemented, it will involve expenditure of over £150 million. I do not intend to go into all the pros and cons of this partisan debate about what should or should not be done in the coming months. However, I refer the House to what the hon. Member for Monklands, West acknowledged. He said:
I accept … that it will be necessary to consider implementation on the basis of phasing." — [Official Report, 4 July 1986; Vol. 100, c. 1340.]
All of us knew that the Act would require phasing in over a period and here we are, in the first year, pressing Ministers to bring into effect various important parts of the Act. In my speech I shall do all that I can to highlight some of the areas that support our pressure to try to get the Department and the local authorities to agree to the satisfactory implementation of sections 5 and 6 of the Act.
I do not know why problems have emerged over the assessment of children's special needs. Where good practices already exist in certain local authority areas, sections 5 and 6 will add few additional responsibilities, but it is absolutely vital that when a disabled child leaves full-time education we should establish a bridge between local education authorities and social services departments. It is at the point when handicapped youngsters leave school and go home to their families that the greatest strains in their development emerge. It is then that the need for day care centres and further education and activity centres becomes most acute.
In my constituency I recently visited a further education centre that is now being established by the Exeter college of education, where a superb job is being done in providing for the needs of handicapped youngsters and adults of all ages. However, it highlighted the gap that still exists in providing for those with severe mental illness or handicaps who are being discharged into the community or to their parents. That gap needs to be closed if the whole system of care in the community is to work. We are reminded of that gap if we go upstairs and visit the Crossroads care exhibition and hear about the needs that have been discovered and that are being so marvellously catered for, again with help from the Government.
The evidence that I have recently received about this gap in local provision and the need to do something about it came, again, from my own constituency. Exeter is probably regarded as one of the foremost authorities in the country in making provision for the discharge of those in institutional care. However, the parent of a 25-year-old severe schizophrenic took me to talk to the doctor who is in charge of the Russell clinic at Digby hospital in Exeter, where 20 to 30 mentally ill patients are resident.
Tremendous progress has been made in moving patients into the new hostels that have been established in Exeter, but the few hostels that have been established are absolutely full and there is nowhere else for patients to be moved to from the hostels. Despite the progress that is being made in advancing the number of patients to the point where they could move into local authority housing units of two, three or four, in which they could live under normal conditions, with just a little supervision, such


housing is not available because there is no tie-up between the local authority, the health authority and the social services department.
The whole cycle has become log-jammed. The hostels are full; therefore the institutionalised patients are becoming frustrated and upset because they are waiting for a chance to move out into hostels. They are also beginning to lose the stability that is so essential to their peace of mind. We must ensure full working co-ordination between local authorities and health authorities, the education and social services departments and the local voluntary agencies.
As he has stated again today, I know that my hon. Friend recognises the need to implement the remaining sections of the Act. I assure him of the full support of the all-party disablement group in his forthcoming negotiations with the local authorities.
Many areas could be touched upon in a debate such as this, but time does not allow. Therefore, I shall pick out a couple of issues that I should like to bring to the notice of the House. The first is a subject that we have debated many times—kidney transplants.
For several years every effort has been made to promote the present opting-in kidney donor card scheme. In debate after debate, both I and other hon. Members have displayed our donor cards and have hoped that our example, combined with the Government's determined publicity campaign, would produce a large enough public response to provide the required number of transplant organs. The Government have done everything possible within the existing scheme to make it work, but I regret to say that the opting-in procedure is not working well enough.
A Gallup survey showed that, of the 893 people questioned, 71 per cent. did not have donor cards and that a further 7 per cent. had cards but did not carry them. A total of 82 per cent. of those surveyed had not read or heard anything that would influence them in deciding whether or not to donate their kidneys. At present, there are about 3,700 kidney patients on the transplant waiting list, with about a third of that number are likely to have a transplant operation each year. These numbers have increased steadily over the years, but that is the position now. The cost of dialysis machines and their operation amounts to £30 million a year.
Something must be done to close that gap. We should consider changing to an opting-out system whereby doctors assume that organs are available for transplantation unless a card is carried stating otherwise. If that system was used in conjunction with a computerised index system on a national scale, we should achieve the desired results.
The other point that I want to raise concerns diabetics and the issue of blood glucose testing strips and disposable syringes by general practitioners under prescription. When I wrote to my hon. Friend the Minister last summer, he gave a strong indication in his reply that the Department accepted the case for blood testing strips to be available on prescription and it was hoped, given resource constraints, to carry that out in the not-too-distant future. I raised the question again last month and received a similarly encouraging response from my hon. and learned Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security who is to reply to this debate. I want to press the point a little further and remind my hon. and learned Friend of the fearful nature of diabetes and the importance

of self-monitoring so that early action can be taken to avoid the appalling complications that can occur at a later stage.
I want to quote from the Department's report on a meeting that was held with the British Diabetic Association and the British Medical Association. The second point in the report states:
The Department acknowledges that blood glucose monitoring offers significant potential advantages over the prescribable urine tests, including better diabetic control. Patients with better control over their condition can avoid or delay the onset of complications, which can lead to expensive NHS treatment quite apart from the humane arguments.
I want to press once again for the earliest possible introduction of prescribable blood testing strips.
I accept that a scheme for disposable syringes would be expensive and might cost £8 million and £9 million. However, now that the Government are considering the issue of disposable needles for drug misusers as part of the AIDS campaign, I stress that it would be completely unfair and unacceptable not to provide free syringes also to diabetics. I hope therefore that these provisions can be introduced as quickly as possible. The long-term gains far outweigh the short-term costs.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) and others referred to the Disablement Income Group campaign for a general disability income. As I have been a patron of DIG for a number of years, it would be remiss of me not to say a few words in support of that long-running campaign.
Simply to say that someone is disabled does not effectively describe the deprivation and hardship which that person can suffer if for one reason or another he or she is unable to work and became disabled other than while covered by industrial injuries compensation. As an example, I want to consider three men of the same age who have become paralysed from the neck down, unable to walk or use their arms, unable to look after themselves and unable to work. The real difference between the three men is that they became disabled in different ways. The first was injured at work and receives £199·45 a week in industrial injuries compensation. The second was injured at home, but had worked and paid national insurance contributions and receives £91·30 a week. The third was born with exactly the same disability, has never worked, and receives just £75·85 a week. They have equal disabilities, but unequal financial allowances. The objective of the DIG campaign, which I fully support, is to secure a fairer distribution of income dependent on the extent of the disability rather than the cause or timing of the disability.
A disability allowance would have two essential parts. There would be a "below the line" allowance to cover the general expense and other costs experienced by disabled people in their daily living — clothing, adaptations, heating and so on. Secondly, there would be an "above the line" allowance which would depend on the degree of disability and the ability to work and would provide an alternative to earnings.
I have long campaigned for such a disability income and also for the "no-fault liability" such as is operated in New Zealand, because I believe that that would solve our problem. I recognise that there are substantial resource implications and it would take some time to put such a scheme into effect. However, in the meantime, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to recognise the logic of such a step, which would remove many of the existing


anomalies and complicated benefits. Whenever my right hon. and hon. Friends adjust or alter existing benefit schemes, will they try to effect any such changes within the general objective of creating a disability allowance so that, when the time is ripe, much of the sorting out will already have been completed and the changeover will not be so complicated?
The all-party disablement group has been engaged in many important issues in recent months and I want to thank Ministers for the courteous and helpful way in which they have received our representations. We have had meetings about McColl, access regulations, training of teachers for the deaf, the mobility allowance and about many of the issues that have been raised today.
I believe that progress is being made constantly. The frontiers are being pushed back and expenditure on the disabled is increasing steadily. I have no hesitation in supporting the Government's amendment to the Opposition motion. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends and ask them to maintain the momentum towards a society in which the disabled and handicapped are allowed to live as fruitful and as happy a life as possible.

Mrs. Elizabeth Shields: I have pleasure in taking part in this debate because alliance Members supported the passage through the House of what is now the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 and we want to ensure that real progress is made over the next decade to implement fully that Act and other legislation intended to improve the quality of life for disabled people.
We also want more support for the many first-class and excellent voluntary organisations concerned with the disabled, both in general terms and in their campaigns to increase public knowledge and understanding of disability and to try to combat prejudice and stigma. To that end, we believe that the £50 million earmarked for educational purposes for the disabled under the 1986 Act should be made available as soon as possible. Through education, more disabled people can be helped to a better quality of life and the able bodied can learn to be of assistance to those in need. One national body, known as PHAB—Physically Handicapped and Able Bodied — was established to bring together persons in both categories for social and recreational activities. PHAB does excellent work, as I know from the programme of a local branch in my constituency.
The alliance wants the best possible education and training for students with disabilities up to the age of 19. For many such students that age limit is arbitrary, and we would hope to extend that entitlement and ensure that continuing education is available to all people with disabilities. We also hope to implement fully the Education Act 1981 and integrate children with disabilities, where possible, into ordinary schools and to fund adequately education for children who require special arrangements.
It is the Government's declared intention to return people in homes or institutions to the community. We do not disagree with that in principle. Many people currently in hospitals or homes for the mentally handicapped should probably never have been put there in the first place. There was simply no other state provision for them, especially if

they were elderly and in need of attention, but did not qualify for medical or surgical treatment in hospital. If individuals can be returned to the community they can live a comparatively full life, provided — and this is important — that there is adequate support and the necessary back-up services.
The aim of such services must be to provide patients with the kind of care appropriate to individual needs, giving as much independence as possible and being sufficiently flexible to cope with differing demands and requirements. It is difficult to estimate this community care option accurately. The cost of transferring individual patients from institutions into the community will be quite different from the average cost per patient of institutional care and from the marginal savings accruing from the transfer in question. The bulk of the savings will come only when the unit or institution is closed, and that means the transfer of all patients or residents, some of whom may be severely handicapped, either physically or mentally.
Community care is not a cheap option. The Government have said that any changes must be implemented within planned resources. They are promoting community integration for the disabled, but they are still hanging fire on the financial implementation of the 1986 Act. Some patients will be able to live in the community with very little extra support, but they will be balanced by patients who need 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week support for every week of the year. Such support will have to be mainly professional, although it will be supplemented by informal help from family, friends and neighbours. The availability of voluntary support will vary, with urban areas likely to benefit more than rural areas. Therefore, the burden will fall heavily on the statutory services.
Last week I visited Claypenny hospital in my constituency. It caters for many mentally handicapped people. The transfer of some of its residents into the community has already taken place and others are preparing for removal. One person with very little disability now has a regular job. This is good and encouraging. However, I am greatly worried about those whose severe handicaps could cause problems and unhappiness for themselves outside their present environment with its great wealth of resources and activities. That will happen unless sufficient numbers of trained staff are made available in the community to care for such patients.
Claypenny hospital—no doubt this applies to similar establishments all over Britain — has a devoted nursing staff, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, caterers, launderers and engineers — all the human resources essential to the welfare of the patients in an excellent institution and necessary for the smooth running of its day-to-day life. A community home with a few residents, about three or four to each house, is ideal. But what about individual attention and the provision of the many facilities now available in hospital? What guarantee is there that the education of the disabled will continue to the same or even to an increased standard?
Claypenny has its own fine special school set in its spacious grounds, and that school is doing good work. I am told that in due course it will close. That seems a great waste of excellent resources. Will funds be available in the community to replace this kind of educational back-up? I hope that the Minister will tell us about that.
Another matter must be considered when discussing voluntary help for disabled people. The Government must


take far more account of the selfless people who stay at home to care for others. The carers are much neglected, and they are mostly women. Women have traditionally been allocated this caring responsibility and that tradition has been reinforced by the practices of both Conservative and Labour Governments. The Prime Minister has laid stress on Victorian values, irrespective of the fact that many of them were bad and certainly not to be encouraged—especially those that relegated women to the home as if that were her only place and role in life. Equally, a Labour Government in 1976 explicitly excluded married and cohabiting women from their entitlement to the invalid care allowance when it was introduced. Any comprehensive policy for care in the community must recognise the position of the carer.
Last year an early-day motion, signed by hon. Members of all parties, called for measures to lighten the burden of carers, to provide adequate respite care and to make the invalid care allowance available to married women carers, as advised by the European Court of Justice and recommended by the Parliamentary Committee. Carers, who are often daughters who give up their own fulfilling career to look after elderly parents or relatives, should be recognised in terms of rights to income support, training, holidays, respite care and professional back-up where necessary. Their contribution to society is as valuable as what is known as "productive" work.
All this costs money, but the total sum of £150 million that has been associated with the Act should be made available as soon as possible. Local councils can also contribute from their own budgets, and I am pleased to learn that in next year's budget North Yorkshire county council is providing a generous £885,000 for the care of elderly, disabled and handicapped people. This is the result of a balanced council that has all parties working together. It will mean more home helps — an important service that makes life more bearable for the housebound. Home helps are the salt of the earth and do an excellent job. Those in old people's homes are remembered as well. Additional staff there will mean greater personal attention and more security for our senior citizens.
In considering the handicapped we should not forget the problems faced by the deaf and the blind for whom special kinds of help are required to enable them to enjoy life. As the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) said, even greater support is needed for those who are both deaf and blind, because in their world they depend totally on their other three senses.
Britain is still a long way from being a society which offers equal opportunities to all. There is discrimination against many minority groups, and this includes people with disabilities. For example, there is no protection in law from discrimination in employment. A Bill of Rights, enforced by a human rights commission, would protect minorities. Even though there are statutory provisions governing the employment of persons with disabilities, they form a disproportionately high number of the unemployed. I urge the Government to see that the implementation of the 1986 Act is not delayed and to ensure that tax cuts in the budget next month are not made at the expense of those whose needs have already been recognised by hon. Members in all parts of the House.

Mr. Greg Knight: I welcome this debate. I did not find the speech by the right hon. Member

for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) offensive, but I found it rather heavy on electioneering and rather light on facts. The Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 was not passed as a result only of efforts made by the Opposition. I remember being present on Second Reading and when the Bill made progress later on. At that time, the worry of the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) was that the Bill could well be talked out. I was one of a number of Conservative Members who supported the measure and I was prepared to urge colleagues to make short speeches so as not to risk losing the Bill.
That Bill had all-party support and was supported by the Government. For that reason I do not accept the criticisms made in this debate. Opposition criticism appears to relate to the delay in implementing the provisions of the Act. Reference was made earlier to the cost, which is now estimated at £150 million. From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) muttered, "So what?" All Governments must take cognisance of the revenue implications of policies that they implement. No doubt that was why the Labour Government of 1974–1979 did not provide resources to implement the 1970 Act. There may be a difference of opinion about the timetabling of this measure, but there is no difference of opinion about the principle.
I am keen to see implemented as soon as possible the provision that will allow disabled people to be represented before a tribunal. I believe that he who is his own advocate has a fool for a client. In some cases, a person who is emotionally involved in the proceedings is worried because it is his own problem that is being decided by the tribunal, and he wants to put over his case about receiving a benefit. Such people often get muddled and do not present the facts in a correct and intelligible way. It is important to ensure that, where possible, disabled people are represented.

Mr. Carter-Jones: On a point of clarity, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 went through the House at about 4 o'clock on the last morning before the general election. The implementation of that Act, known as the Alf Morris Act, was up to the Conservative Government.

Mr. Knight: I do not withdraw the point that I made earlier. The Labour Government of 1974 had the opportunity to implement that Act and they did not provide resources to local government to enable that to be done. Undoubtedly, the reason why they did not do so was that they had other priorities at that time, given the state of the economy. No criticism can be levelled today against the Government and I deplore the attacks on the Prime Minister that were made earlier in the debate.

Mr. Wigley: On Tuesday last week.

Mr. Major: The hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) referred again to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I did not interrupt the speech of the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South again, because of the shortness of the debate. Before the points that have been made get taken out of context, it would be wise for people to read the record and assure themselves that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that spending on disabled benefit has gone up by 75 per cent. That is what I said, and it is wholly true.

Mr. Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That 75 per cent. increase takes the amount now being spent to nearly £6 billion. There is nothing to be ashamed of in that.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Referring to the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister, perhaps it is worth bearing in mind that that 75 per cent. increase in real terms includes an increase of 50 per cent. due to the increased number of beneficiaries and more than 20 per cent. because of the increase in real value of benefits for long-term sick and disabled people.

Mr. Knight: That is an important point, and I am sure that the House has noted it.
There are two areas in which there are problems for disabled people. The first is the fact that disabled people want nothing more than to be treated as ordinary citizens and members of the community. I regret to say that there is still discrimination in some areas, such as entry into cinemas, discos, dance halls, offices and shops. I would welcome the full force of the law being brought against those organisations and companies that break it in this area.
Opposition Members earlier mentioned the problem of disabled people and unemployment. It is fair to say that the disabled today still suffer, if not from prejudice, then certainly from some employers' reluctance to take them on. There appears to be a presumption that a person who is physically disabled is also mentally slow, incompetent and unable to work as well as an able-bodied person. I deplore that attitude, which still exists in some parts of industry.
There is no reason why someone who suffers from a physical disability should be prevented from acting as a typist, a receptionist or a telephonist. I know of a number of blind people and severely handicapped people who discharge those duties admirably.
All hon. Members should welcome the Government's initiatives on unemployment. I understand that, as far as access to MSC employment and training programmes is concerned, in some cases the disabled have preferential access because of relaxed eligibility conditions. I particularly welcome the fares-to-work scheme and the scheme which allows disabled people to borrow special aids for employment, such as fixtures for typewriters, earpieces for telephones and so on. Those allow a person to work who might otherwise not be able to do so.
I applaud the fact that the Government have implemented a job introduction scheme which encourages employers to recruit disabled people by offering a weekly grant of £45 for a trial period. I hope that, in the short term, the cash will triumph over the unfortunate attitude of some employers and will lead to more disabled people being offered employment.
The House should applaud the fact that, as the Minister said earlier, the Government are providing £6 billion in 1986–87 to assist the disabled. The ability of any Government to assist must depend on the state of the economy. Labour Members have no monopoly of compassion for the disabled. Conservative Members care about them, too. Putting that care into practice is the difficult thing. In view of the projected growth of the economy and of Britain's strong financial position, I look forward to a continuation in the next Parliament of the increasing help that the Government are giving to the disabled.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Some hon. Members are apparently suffering from an illusion about the nature of the motion before the House. They assume that no party political difference exists on this issue. The Government's record and attitude show clearly that there is a difference between us, no matter how much compassion there may be in the hearts of individual Conservative Members.
I remember an infamous day—18 November 1983—when I attempted to bring in a Bill that would have outlawed discrimination against disabled people. With four honourable exceptions Conservative Members were dragooned into the Division Lobby to stop that measure having a Second Reading. It was voted down on a closure. That illustrated more than anything else the attitude of the Government.
We have all heard of the St. Valentine's day massacre in Chicago in the 1920s. There has been another one recently. On Saturday 14 February 1987 the Careline bus service for the disabled that runs between the railway stations in London and the airports was closed down because the Government were unwilling to provide the revenue support that it needed. I know that there will be another service—the airbus service—but that will not be introduced until July. What will disabled people, not only from London but from all over the country, do? How will they get about between now and July? Even the Greater London Association for the Disabled is doubtful whether the airbus service will be an adequate substitute.
We should not be surprised at the Government's attitude. I worry about whether section 7 of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act will ever be implemented so long as this Government have a majority. Psychiatric patients are being let out of hospital into an alien environment after six months, only to receive at best inadequate attention and at worst the fate of being completely ignored. In terms of this Government's expenditure on Trident and armaments, implementing section 7 costs very little—very little in terms of the £3·5 billion tax reductions for the very rich. There is no reason why the Government should not provide the resources called for under section 7 of that Act for these poor people.
The Government's indifference to the plight of the disabled is now well documented. Local authorities have been denuded of funds and have had to ignore their statutory obligations. There is a marked contrast between the district auditor surcharging and disqualifying councillors in Liverpool because they delayed levying a rate—a relatively minor and highly controversial matter—and the Government's attitude to local authorities which charged for home helps in contravention of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970.
The Government do nothing to ensure that local authorities discharge their statutory obligations to the disabled. The disabled have been under attack by this Government who have doubled the available scale margin from 50p to £1 and extended its application to heating allowances. The disabled now face the propect of having to pay 20 per cent. of their rates, irrespective of their means.
The Government are abolishing the additional allowances for items such as extra heating, special diets, laundry and clothing. They have replaced them, to all


intents and purposes, with the measly £23 a week special disablement premium, and the most severely disabled have been the chief sufferers.
The Government are a lost cause, but soon there will be a new Parliament and it will have to address its attention to the creation of a national disability income. The need for that has been highlighted by a number of organisations, including the Disablement Income Group. The group has shown that three men aged 39, paralysed from the neck down, unable to do anything for themselves and unable to take employment, are treated differently according to how they became disabled. The man who is paralysed from the neck down but was injured at work receives £199·45 a week; the man who was injured in the home but has worked and paid his national insurance contributions receives only £91·30 a week; but the poor man who was born disabled, has never worked, and therefore has never paid any national insurance contribution, receives £75·85 per week.
Such anomalies can really be taken account of only by a proper national disability income. Such an income would have two elements. First, there would be a disablement costs allowance, which would defray expenses and the difficulties of daily living experienced by disabled people. Secondly, it would provide an alternative source of income to the earnings lost through disability. The present allowances are quite inadequate. An attendance allowance of £30·95 a week will not buy 24-hour care; a mobility allowance of £21·65 a week cannot cover the cost of daily taxi fares for people who are unable to use public transport; and £23·25 a week for a disability premium does not replace the weekly earnings of even the lowest-paid worker in this country. A disablement costs allowance would replace the chaos of the current inadequate benefit schemes. It would deal not only with the extra costs currently covered by additional allowances such as heating, but with the mechanical and electrical aids that are often needed by disabled people as an aid to living — to enable them to lead even the semblance of a proper life.
I believe that the next Labour Government — and speed the day when they take power—will have to keep faith with the 10 per cent. of the population and the 29 per cent. of households which have at least one disabled member. They must do that by doing at least three things. First, they must outlaw discrimination against disabled people.
The House will have a Bill before it very soon, if I am given leave to introduce the measure on 4 March. Secondly, there must be a national disability scheme. Thirdly, I believe that we should have a Minister for the Disabled with a Department equipped to run the rule over all legislation and all measures emanating from all Departments of State.
Socialists have an ideological as well as a humanitarian commitment to ensuring that disabled people are given equality, but this Government still have an opportunity in the remaining time available to them. If Ministers have consciences, if they believe that there is a case for bettering the living standards of disabled people, they have on the statute book the 1970 Act. The legislative background is there. It requires only the will — not the will to give largesse to rich taxpayers but the will to give to those who, often through no fault of their own, are suffering disability and need a real chance in life.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing). It is appropriate that the debate was introduced by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who in so many ways is the father of us all when it comes to legislation for disabled people. The experience that my right hon. Friend had with the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 is a warning to us all of what happens when there is legislation on the statute book that does not immediately receive the resources or the full implementation that it deserves. My right hon. Friend underlined that in the way in which he introduced the warnings of what could be happening to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, which was piloted through the House by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who I am glad to see is sitting on the Front Bench this evening.
I shall not introduce party political bickering into the debate. I have paid credit in the past to some of the things that the Government have done —for example, what they have done for mentally handicapped people in Wales, the "all-well" strategy, and so forth. However, no one can say that the Prime Minister's response at Question Time last Tuesday was anything short of callous and indifferent. The Prime Minister said:
However, the provisions of the Act, which have significant resource implications, can only be brought into effect as and when these resources can be provided."—[Official Report, 10 February 1987; Vol. 110, c. 156.]
That was it. The Prime Minister did not say that the Government wanted to make progress as quickly as they could, or that they were doing everything in their power. She did not say that this was a high priority in the Government's programme. No; there was a full stop at that point. That was all the sympathy and action for the disabled that we had from the Prime Minister last Tuesday.
The amendment contains the words that I interjected when the Minister of State was speaking earlier. The amendment
re-affirms its commitment to the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 with implementation as resources become available and as priorities allow".
The reality is that the priorities of disabled people do not allow the Act to go ahead as rapidly as possible. Thousands of people the length and breadth of these islands need the implementation of all the provisions of the Act, and they need it now. People coming out of long-stay hospitals, people suffering from mental illness—as we have heard from several speakers—desperately need the provisions. Those people are being let loose into the community without community facilities and provisions being made available to them. But they are not a sufficient priority to be put above the other demands on the Government's purse.
No doubt, in a few weeks we shall be given a reduction in income tax. One sixth of every penny to be knocked off income tax would pay for the implementation of the Act, and it is not all needed in one parliamentary year, as the Minister said. But that is not the Government's priority. They would rather give the money away in the run-up to an election than spend it on essential services for the disabled. Nor is it their priority to help mentally handicapped children in schools. Such children need a


personal plan and provision when they leave school at the age of 18 or 19 so that they do not come home to aging parents who do not know how to care for them, and have no back-up facilities within the community. That is a priority for many of us, but it is not the Government's priority.

Mr. Thurnham: rose—

Mr. Wigley: No, I am not giving way. Time is short.
The Government would rather give away about £3,000 million to income tax payers to buy votes. There are unpaid carers in the community—often they are women — looking after elderly and disabled relatives in their own homes, who desperately need support services within the community. They desperately need domiciliary nursing support. They need therapy in their own households to stop their relatives from being hospitalised and going into long-stay institutions. They need that help now. They have a desperate priority. However, the priority of the Government is to cut income tax, not to find that one sixth of one penny of income tax which is needed to implement the Act.
We know of the need for greater assessment so that all those who have a real need, and who should come within the provisions of the 1970 Act will have those needs met. Yes, that will need expenditure, but it is not a priority for the Government.
The Prime Minister's response to this matter last Tuesday was a disgrace to the Conservative party and to the House. The Prime Minister and her Ministers should have been much more willing to ensure that the needs of disabled people are not the last priority in the queue. They should ensure that disabled people do not come after everything else and that money which is expected in the Budget is not given away elsewhere. They should ensure that those needs rank high in the order of priorities as we see them.
I accept that the Minister—as he said in an earlier intervention — does not know what is in the Budget. However, he could tell the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister that unless provision is made within the next financial year for the implementation of the Act, he will not vote for the Government on the Budget or anything else. It is a matter of principle and whether the Minister will stand up for what is needed by disabled people. It is a question of whether his priorities are those of disabled people, or of the Treasury or those of a Conservative Government before an election.
One can pursue many issues connected with disabled people. This issue will not go away. It will return at Question Time after Question Time, week after week. It will run hard in a general election, unless the Government rapidly find the money to make the Act a reality.
In cutting my comments short I wish to refer to the review of the supplementary benefit limits for board and lodging and residential and nursing care that were announced on Thursday of last week. An extra £5 was given for elderly people and £10 for physically disabled people under pension age. That is an increase of up to £190 a week from April.
Although the £10 a week was welcomed, it still does not address the problem of the more profoundly or multiple-handicap people who incur high care costs and face charges of up to £300 a week. Local authorities are obliged

to top up the difference, and most do so. My concern is for the future, as more profoundly handicapped people go into residential care rather than hospital, and smaller "normal" homes are developed where economy of scale costs are not possible. If those people are seeking residential care they may have topping-up problems and be channelled into inappropriate care. The Spastics Society has made representations to the Minister seeking a special category of people on higher rate attendance allowance who would receive the nursing home rate of £230 a week without having to be in a nursing home. If the Government had acknowledged the special needs of that group of profoundly handicapped people, they would have encouraged local authorities to top up the difference.
The board and lodging rate for people with mental handicaps is also a problem. That remains unchanged, at £150 a week. MENCAP responded angrily to that. It will inevitably exacerbate the problems of mentally handicapped people in smaller group homes that are registered as residential care homes.
While the Government are attempting to seek a longer-term solution to the issue, individual disabled people are experiencing difficulties in the short term. The imposition of blanket limits inevitably results in the needs of individuals not being recognised. I hope that the Minister will take on board the need for profoundly mentally and physically handicapped people to be better catered for in the system. I underline the great dismay and disappointment that I believe hon. Members on both sides of the House feel because progress is not being made as they had hoped. Progress is being made, by stages, but we had hoped that it would be made by rapid stages. At present, there is no end to the tunnel. There is no light in sight. I hope that the Minister will give a greater commitment to the speedy, full implementation of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 within the next 12 months.

Mr. Lewis Stevens: Labour Members have decried the £6 billion being spent on the disabled as though nothing had been done. Yet that figure represents a £2·5 billion increase. The increase in the number of people who now receive the increased benefit should also be welcomed by all hon. Members. Instead, however, Labour Members are somewhat mealy-mouthed about the success of the Government's measures.
The Social Security Act 1986 was mentioned in the usual disparaging way by the Opposition, but within the terms of that Act 160,000 disabled people will receive £4 to £5 per week more than at present. Surely that is a help. We talk about disabled people as though every one of them was extremely severely disabled. They all matter, however small their disability, but they are not all at the extreme end of the disability scale. The review that the Minister has had carried out into the genuine needs of the severely disabled is also important. A commitment was made in Committee on the Social Security Bill that people's needs would be considered carefully before the level of benefits was set. It was also stated that grants—not loans—could be made available through the social fund. That possibility could certainly be considered in some cases.
The severely disabled, who are obviously those in the greatest need, can be looked after even better than they are today within the terms of the new social security


framework. The Government have made commitments to do that. They have also made commitments regarding the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), which contained some extremely important provisions. As was mentioned earlier, it is important that the disabled should be able to get help quickly for representations before tribunals. I welcome the Minister's comments today and the fact that there has at last been movement on the McColl report. That will be welcome news for many disabled people, and I hope that other measures recommended in the report will be implemented in the near future.
I welcome the steps towards people moving out of care and into the community. I am convinced that that is the right approach, but the benefits for those moving out should be monitored carefully. It is not just a matter of value for money. It is a matter of whether the homes into which those individuals move function well and to their benefit. These are comparatively early days, but we should monitor that change closely through local authorities and the DHSS to ensure that such moves are genuinely beneficial to all those concerned. I still have some slight doubt as to whether all the people being moved out are really ready for it and whether the places to which they are moved are suitable. A more formal institution might still be preferable for some of them at this stage.
Changes in the education provision for handicapped people have been working successfully for some years, but the effect on children going into normal schools should be studied. How much does that benefit some of those children? The majority will certainly benefit, but that also needs to be considered. The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) mentioned those who are deaf and blind. Some parents in my constituency work very hard on behalf of the organisation called SENSE. I have visited that organisation's centre in Edgbaston, Birmingham. Those people have a most difficult problem — to put it mildly — in terms of mobility and being looked after. I can conceive of little that equals the difficulties of parents and other people who look after those children. I ask the Minister to consider carefully the terms of the early-day motion on mobility allowance for those people.
I have exhausted the few minutes that I had. The Government are concerned. The Government have taken action in the past and are taking action in the new social security review. The Government have a commitment to the legislation introduced by the hon. Member for Monklands, West. We have shown that we care about the disabled. More must be done, and I am sure that the Government will do it.

Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones: After 22 years involvement in the House in respect of disability, I shall now make my shortest speech on the subject. It is heartwarming that the disabled people are concerned about prevention. I am delighted to be associated with the Spastics Society's move to prevent disability in the young. The society has realised the suffering caused by disability, and it is willing to make a sacrifice to do something about the problem.
One of the great problems faced by disabled people is the handicap that prevents them from being educated. They will have a double handicap if we make it difficult for them to be educated. Will the Minister please ensure

that more resources are made available for the provisions of the Education Act 1981, which we said were the Warnock recommendations without the resources? Those resources must be provided.
The disabled child or disabled adult who gets the education that he or she deserves has a good and substantial chance of being rehabilitated and of becoming who he or she wants to be—an income tax payer. If disabled people are to become income tax payers, after overcoming their disability, receiving their education and being rehabilitated, we shall have failed if the Manpower Services Commission does not fight much harder for them to get them employment. Will the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled please go to the Under-Secretary of State for Employment with responsibility for the disabled—the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) —and say, "There is a fair amount of money available to the MSC, but there is not enough drive or initiative. There is an awful lot of propaganda and a tremendous amount of paperwork but there are not enough jobs."? At the end of the day, if we have prevented disability in some cases and educated in others and have rehabilitated disabled people, we owe them a chance to get a place in society working wherever possible.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Like other right hon. and hon. Members, my time is restricted. There are many points which I should like to make but which I shall reserve for another occasion. The Minister was generous enough to say some kind things, and I am grateful to him. Whether by the end of my speech he will feel that I have reciprocated is another matter.
It is extremely important that we should have this debate. The admirable speeches of my right hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) arid for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and for Eccles (Mr. Carter-Jones) and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), show that the Opposition believe that there are questions that will not go away. We are determined to pose them and determined that the Under-Secretary of State should reply to them.
The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled began, as is the Government's style in matters relevant to disability, by announcing in dribs and drabs measures about which we should have heard some time ago when we expected a Government response to the McColl report. As with aspects of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986, we are finding that the Government and Government spokespersons are promising announcements—we await them — but nothing is said or done.
I obtained a Library paper on the McColl report which considered the issues mentioned by the Minister — wheelchairs and the rest. The McColl report is very important. The Library paper said that the previous Minister for Social Security — the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) —was to make an announcement before the summer. This is February and the present Minister still has not made a clear statement on the Government's thinking on the McColl report. The Government's attitude to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act is similar.
I welcomed, as did the whole House, the support given to the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and


Representation) Act by those hon. Members who have participated in this debate, including the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Hannam), but I could not agree with the account of the Government's timetable given by the Minister and shared to some extent by the hon. Member for Exeter.
The Government are well behind the commitments that they gave the House on Third Reading and when considering Lords amendments. If the Minister has any doubts about that, I refer him to the comment made on 11 April on Third Reading by the then Minister for Health the right hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) — when referring to the clause dealing specifically with the problems of disabled school leavers, which the Government disgracefully set aside. He said:
I am advised that there probably need not be any delay in implementing the new clause. I hope that its provisions will apply soon."—[Official Report, 11 April 1985; Vol. 95, c. 484.]
On 4 July, in the debate on the Lords amendments—by which time the Government had had plenty of time to think about their timing — the present Minister for Health, the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton), said:
If possible, we should like to bring the provisions into effect in time to benefit disabled young people leaving full-time education in the summer of 1987, that is by the autumn of this year. We shall be consulting urgently with local authority associations about achieving that." — [Official Report, 4 July 1986; Vol. 100, c. 1328.]
That commitment has not been honoured. I challenge the Minister to give us evidence to the contrary. If he suggests that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I are misleading the House, I ask him to explain the position to voluntary organisations—from the Advocacy Alliance to RADAR, MENCAP, MIND and the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped—which all feel as strongly as I do about the Government's failure to honour their commitment.
Those voluntary organisations said:
It is this particular section of the Act which is causing the most anxiety among the organisations at present. It already looks as though the Government will not bring this section into operation by October. If the Government does not move now, the future of those leaving school in 1988 and 1989 will be seriously and adversely affected. The young disabled people will leave school without a proper assessment of their needs and of their future".
I should like to repeat the next sentence, which is perhaps the most important comment so far on the Government's attitude to this legislation. The voluntary organisations—I know of not one that supports the Government's position—said:
Still more serious is the implication of these delays on the rest of the Act and the future of all ages of people with disabilities. How can the voluntary organisations be assured that the other sections of the Act will be implemented and how long will this take?
That overwhelming question mark hangs above the Government Dispatch Box as we debate these matters. The question mark was just as overwhelming when the Prime Minister attempted the other day to answer our question and left us with even more doubts about the Government's credibility than we had before.
I ask the Minister also, because leaks are not unknown in the Government, whether he has read, or is even aware of, the report yesterday in the Daily Telegraph about the disabled benefits review. The hon. Gentleman mentioned

the OPCS survey which is being conducted. The House is entitled to know what that survey has been doing. Will it lead to a review, especially one about nil costs? If there are to be winners and losers, as the Prime Minister said in another context, are not disabled winners and losers to know exactly who they are before the election? The Minister owes the House that information at least.
With regard to local authority associations, I am delighted that the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which all supported the Act, have expressed their disappointment at the Government's niggardly attitude to the provision of resources.
Let there be no doubt, when the Minister and some of his hon. Friends suggest that I for one second agreed to the Government's timetable, that Conservative Members were fully aware of the resources implications and fully aware that the House would be profoundly disappointed if, seven months after Royal Assent, we found that not one ha'penny had been spent and not a single order introduced. They knew, too, that the House would be disappointed to know that, although we have pressed the Government time after time, the people of Northern Ireland still do not know whether the Government intend to apply the Act to them. If they are in doubt, may I remind them of the views of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), on Third Reading on 11 April. He said:
Those of us who may from time to time take a slightly parsimonious attitude to Government matters are anxious that all the resources needed should he found to fulfil the agreed measures behind this important Bill.
I add my voice to those of other Conservative Members who give their support in seeking the resources needed to fulfil the Bill's excellent objectives."—[Official Report, 11 April 1986; Vol. 95, c. 484.]
For the Government now to pretend that they did not know about resource implications, to pretend that hon. Members—especially my right hon. and hon. Friends—and local authorities did not anticipate that, is to mislead the House beyond what is acceptable.
Even if every word, line and clause of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 were implemented, problems would still remain. The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mrs. Shields), in an interesting and helpful speech. referred to the problem of carers. When the Government tell us about the cost, as they estimate it, of implementing the Act—setting aside the other priorities in which they seem to believe: £164 million to dispose of and advertise the sale of British Gas, over £200 million that they are spending on AWACS and the proposals to reduce tax in the next Budget—we would want to remind them that carers in Britain save the Treasury millions of pounds every day, every week and every year. The Government should not exploit that dedication.
Some Conservative Members gave genuine support to what is now the Act. I acknowledge that at the time and I do so now. If they believe that the Government are not acting in a lethargic manner, they are being led up the garden path. There is a difference on these matters between the two sides of the House. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition warned, two days before the last general election, that were the Prime Minister reelected there would be cuts in community services. He said then, and our debate has confirmed it:


I warn you not to fall ill; I warn you not to get old.
The Prime Minister mentioned St. Francis of Assisi. She forgot that he had suggested that we should seek not just to be understood, but to understand.
The inexcusable lethargy on the part of the Government is a clear admission that they fail to understand the problems of the 5·5 million disabled people and their carers in this country. For that reason I invite the House to support our motion, and I invite the British people to reach their own conclusions when the time comes.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell): It is a matter of note that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) should make his debut on the Front Bench in a debate which largely centres on the implementation of a Bill which he piloted skilfully from the Back Benches.
I would have been able to give the hon. Gentleman a warmer welcome if he had not so heavily laced his opening speech from that position with humbug. The hon. Gentleman knew when he introduced his Bill, with Government support and the support of my hon. Friends—a point that was well made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Knight)—that he was accepting phasing. He said:
I accept, as I did on Second Reading, that it will be necessary to consider implementation on the basis of phasing."—[Official Report, 4 July 1986; Vol. 100, c. 1340.]
We shall implement some sections of the Act promptly. It remains our hope, as my hon. Friend said, subject to the outcome of his discussions with the local authority associations, that sections 4, 8, 9 and 10 of the Act can be implemented by 1 April. My hon. Friend said that he was optimistic that it would be possible to implement section 11 this year. Some realities come home to us when we look at sections 5 and 6. As my hon. Friend said, he also wishes to examine whether we shall be able to make progress on sections 5 and 6, which deal with the identification and assessment of disabled school leavers.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West originally believed that the implementation of those sections would not have a significant cost. The hon. Gentleman told the House — it was put more strongly by the right hon. Gentleman and Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) — that the Opposition now estimate the annual cost of those sections at between £30 million and £50 million, which is a matter that any Government would have to mention. It is a matter which Opposition Members ought to appreciate because they were clearly sensitive during this debate about their inability to allocate any specific sum between 1974 and 1979 to the implementation of the Chronically Sick and Disabled persons Act 1970, which was introduced by the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe. The reasons why they were in difficulty are well known to the House—the problem in 1976, the fact that the party was over, and the return from the airport.
Priorities and finances must be a matter for any Government. The priorities of the Opposition in this matter of disablement benefits deserve more careful scrutiny, and I commend this to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) and the hon. Member for Monklands, West who has just joined the Front Bench. That £3·5 billion, which is all supposedly to be produced from the rich—although we notice from the newspapers

that they are getting a little richer, and no doubt the yield is getting a little smaller—will not help the poor, the disabled or the long-term sick. As we know, that £3·5 billion, which is supposed to be spent on child benefit, on extra pensions and on the long-term scale rate, does not provide the extra £1 billion that would be necessary to offset the corresponding deductions from the means-tested benefits of the poor; nor does it provide the normal upratings that go with it for the long-term sick, for widows and for the disabled, which would require an extra £1 billion, making it £5·5 billion.
The hon. Gentleman seeks to attack us because we have careful priorities in finance, but the foundations of his party's strategy on the sick, pensioners and the disabled are undercut by its failure to think through the points that it is seeking to make. The Opposition say, "Take it out of defence spending." I watched the Leader of the Opposition talking to Sir Robin Day last night. He was not talking about taking anything out of defence spending. He was putting it into some sort of conventional defence which is supposed to help us. No money was to be obtained there.
The Opposition say that we should not make tax cuts, as though tax cuts affected only the rich; as though the only people in this country who pay tax were rich. A high proportion of the taxation that funds benefits is paid by people who get little more in earnings than many of the people who receive benefit. That is one of the realities that the Government do not forget.
The right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) made an uncharacteristic and ill-placed attack on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He failed to quote what she said and it shows the Opposition's sensitivity on this point. What my right hon. Friend said about the 75 per cent. increase in spending on benefits under this Government—no less than £2·5 billion—to £6 billion was absolutely accurate. Opposition Members are entitled to play with statistics, like the rest of us, and they are perfectly entitled to say that spending on the disabled went up by 8·3 per cent. in real terms during their period of office and that it has gone up by 6 per cent. during our period of office, but I shall put that into its real terms. When it comes to constant price money, the money that has to be provided by the taxes of people who go to work and pay their taxes, the increased amount paid each year during their period of office, 1974 to 1979, was £166 million. The increased amount that was being paid during the first six years of this Government was not £166 million, but £215 million in real terms. That puts the matter into perspective.
My hon. Friend has made our position clear. We will seek to implement the Act on the basis that we have set out. We hope to make significant progress with sections 4, 8, 9 and 10, and we hope section 11 in the near future, and we are looking carefully at sections 5 and 6. We will set about it in the workmanlike way in which we have set about our care of the disabled over the past six years and which we hope to continue over the next five years.
I invite the House to reject the motion tabled by the Opposition, and I commend the amendment in the names of my right hon. Friends to the House. If there is a Division, I invite the House to join us in the Lobby.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 267.

Division No. 93]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Alton, David
Home Robertson, John


Anderson, Donald
Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Howells, Geraint


Ashton, Joe
Hoyle, Douglas


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Barron, Kevin
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Beith, A. J.
Janner, Hon Greville


Bell, Stuart
John, Brynmor


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Johnston, Sir Russell


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Bermingham, Gerald
Kennedy, Charles


Bidwell, Sydney
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Blair, Anthony
Kirkwood, Archy


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Lambie, David


Boyes, Roland
Lamond, James


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Leighton, Ronald


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Litherland, Robert


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Loyden, Edward


Bruce, Malcolm
McCartney, Hugh


Buchan, Norman
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Campbell, Ian
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McNamara, Kevin


Canavan, Dennis
McWilliam, John


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Madden, Max


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Marek, Dr John


Cartwright, John
Martin, Michael


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Clarke, Thomas
Maxton, John


Clay, Robert
Maynard, Miss Joan


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Meacher, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Meadowcroft, Michael


Conlan, Bernard
Michie, William


Corbett, Robin
Mikardo, Ian


Corbyn, Jeremy
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Craigen, J. M.
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Crowther, Stan
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Nellist, David


Dewar, Donald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dixon, Donald
O'Neill, Martin


Dormand, Jack
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dubs, Alfred
Park, George


Duffy, A. E. P.
Patchett, Terry


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Pavitt, Laurie


Eadie, Alex
Pendry, Tom


Eastham, Ken
Pike, Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Faulds, Andrew
Prescott, John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Radice, Giles


Fisher, Mark
Randall, Stuart


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Redmond, Martin


Forrester, John
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Foster, Derek
Richardson, Ms Jo


Foulkes, George
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Robertson, George


Freud, Clement
Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)


Garrett, W. E.
Rooker, J. W.


Godman, Dr Norman
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Rowlands, Ted


Gould, Bryan
Sedgemore, Brian


Gourlay, Harry
Sheerman, Barry


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hardy, Peter
Shields, Mrs Elizabeth


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Haynes, Frank
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Skinner, Dennis


Heffer, Eric S.
Smith, C.(Isl'ton S &amp; F'bury)





Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)
Weetch, Ken


Snape, Peter
Welsh, Michael


Soley, Clive
White, James


Steel, Rt Hon David
Wigley, Dafydd


Stott, Roger
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Gordon


Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)
Winnick, David


Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
Woodall, Alec


Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Tinn, James



Torney, Tom
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wainwright, R.
Mr. James Hamilton and


Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Ron Davies.


Wareing, Robert





NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Dickens, Geoffrey


Alexander, Richard
Dorrell, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Amess, David
Durant, Tony


Ancram, Michael
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Arnold, Tom
Eggar, Tim


Ashby, David
Emery, Sir Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Fallon, Michael


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Favell, Anthony


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Batiste, Spencer
Fletcher, Sir Alexander


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Forman, Nigel


Bellingham, Henry
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Benyon, William
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Best, Keith
Fox, Sir Marcus


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Franks, Cecil


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Galley, Roy


Blackburn, John
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Body, Sir Richard
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gow, Ian


Bottomley, Peter
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grant, Sir Anthony


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hannam, John


Bright, Graham
Hayes, J.


Brinton, Tim
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hayward, Robert


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bruinvels, Peter
Henderson, Barry


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hickmet, Richard


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hind, Kenneth


Buck, Sir Antony
Hirst, Michael


Bulmer, Esmond
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Burt, Alistair
Holt, Richard


Butcher, John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Howard, Michael


Butterfill, John
Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hubbard-Miles, Peter


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Irving, Charles


Cash, William
Jessel, Toby


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Kershaw, Sir Anthony


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Knox, David


Cockeram, Eric
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Colvin, Michael
Lang, Ian


Conway, Derek
Latham, Michael


Coombs, Simon
Lawler, Geoffrey


Cope, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Cormack, Patrick
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Corrie, John
Lee, John (Pendle)


Couchman, James
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Cranborne, Viscount
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Critchley, Julian
Lester, Jim


Crouch, David
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lilley, Peter






Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Pollock, Alexander


Lord, Michael
Porter, Barry


Lyell, Nicholas
Powell, William (Corby)


McCrindle, Robert
Powley, John


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Macfarlane, Neil
Price, Sir David


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Proctor, K. Harvey


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Raffan, Keith


Maclean, David John
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


McLoughlin, Patrick
Rathbone, Tim


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


McQuarrie, Albert
Renton, Tim


Major, John
Rhodes James, Robert


Malins, Humfrey
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Maples, John
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Mather, Sir Carol
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Maude, Hon Francis
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Mellor, David
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Merchant, Piers
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Roe, Mrs Marion


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Rowe, Andrew


Miscampbell, Norman
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Ryder, Richard


Moate, Roger
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Monro, Sir Hector
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
Scott, Nicholas


Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Murphy, Christopher
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Neale, Gerrard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Nelson, Anthony
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Neubert, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Newton, Tony
Silvester, Fred


Nicholls, Patrick
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Norris, Steven
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Onslow, Cranley
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.
Spencer, Derek


Osborn, Sir John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Ottaway, Richard
Squire, Robin


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Steen, Anthony


Patten, Christopher (Bath)
Stern, Michael


Pattie, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)





Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wall, Sir Patrick


Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Waller, Gary


Stokes, John
Walters, Dennis


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Ward, John


Sumberg, David
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Warren, Kenneth


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Watson, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Watts, John


Terlezki, Stefan
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Wheeler, John


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Whitney, Raymond


Thurnham, Peter
Wiggin, Jerry


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wilkinson, John


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Trotter, Neville
Winterton, Nicholas


Twinn, Dr Ian
Woodcock, Michael


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Yeo, Tim


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wakeham, Rt Hon John



Waldegrave, Hon William
Tellers for the Noes:


Walden, George
Mr. Michael Portillo and


Walker, Bill (T'side N)
Mr. David Lightbown.


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House congratulates the Government on its continuing commitment to improving provision for disabled people; draws attention to the increase in annual spending on their social security entitlements of £2·5 billion in real terms since 1978–79; welcomes improvements in their tax position and employment opportunities; reaffirms its commitment to the provisions of the Disabled Persons (Services, Consultation and Representation) Act 1986 with implementation as resources become available and as priorities allow; and welcomes the survey by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys into the numbers, circumstances and needs of disabled people as a basis for a comprehensive review of benefits of long-term sick and disabled people.

Women in the Community

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Before I call the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), I have to tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister and other Ministers.

Ms. Jo Richardson: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Government's policies which have increased the disadvantages of women in the community and at work, particularly with regard to their health and well being, and have failed to recognise the justifiable care, security and opportunity needs of women.
I begin by reminding the House of an event that took place in July 1985 — the United Nations conference in Nairobi, which marked the end of the United Nations Decade for Women. At that conference, 157 nations, including the United Kingdom, were represented and they unanimously agreed a document known as the Nairobi forward-looking strategies for the advancement of women. That far-reaching and imaginative document sets out a detailed blueprint for action on equality, employment, health, education, peace and development. It cites the need for equal pay and for conditions for work of equal value and recommends the desegregation of jobs so that women are no longer consigned to occupations characterised by low pay, poor promotion prospects and job insecurity. It considers the need for better training opportunities for women and the provision of opportunities for retraining to reduce unemployment among women. It also recommends that the tax law be amended so that they are not a disincentive to married women seeking or undertaking paid employment.
Representatives of the British Government agreed the document and eventually, but only after a great deal of nagging, ratified the 1981 United Nations convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. The Government's support for it was, however, seriously reduced by no fewer than five pages of reservations attached to their ratification. Those reservations included the right to regard our existing Sex Discrimation Act 1975 and our Equal Pay Act 1970 as sufficient to meet the needs of women in Britain and the requirements of the United Nations convention. They also included the right to continue to apply discriminatory retirement pensions, social security and taxation laws, to retain discriminatory immigration and nationality laws and to reject all measures for positive action as practices
which provide for women to be treated more favourably than men".
Despite the fact that the European courts have forced the Government grudgingly to give way on some of the more blatant aspects of their continuing discrimination against women, the Government have fought to hold on to as many of those reservations as possible, or to equalise down, as with immigration, the justifiable demands of women. Two years after the close of the United Nations Decade for Women, the ideals of Nairobi are still a long way from becoming a reality.

Ms. Clare Short: Did the Government also go on record on that occasion as exempting themselves from the requirement to deal with the problem of low pay? When they introduced the Wages Bill to encourage low pay, which is overwhelmingly a

problem for women, they had to resile from the International Labour Organisation convention. Did they confess to the world in Nairobi that they were encouraging low pay and thus reducing the living standards of working women?

Ms. Richardson: I did not have the privilege and, frankly, could not afford to go to Nairobi, but I am certain from what I have heard that they would not have made any confessions about low pay, which they have allowed to continue and about which they have done nothing, although I am sure that it is among their reservations as they have done nothing whatever about it.
If the "forward strategies" had been implemented, women and men in paid employment would be entitled to three months' parental leave after the birth of a child. The Government have not only failed to implement that but have played the leading role in blocking the European Economic Community initiative on parental leave. In this context, I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) for introducing a 10-minute rule Bill on parental leave last week. The United Nations strategy if implemented, would provide all men and women with easy access to child care facilities. Despite consistent and overwhelming evidence that this is one of the most important considerations of parents in paid employment, state provision is virtually non-existent for children under the age of three and covers only a tiny minority of three to five-year-olds.
In 1985, the last year of the Decade for Women, the Government taxed the provision of work place nurseries, treating that essential service as a perk. This year by the withdrawal of Manpower Services Commission funding, they allowed the closure of the only skillcentre course with a Labour local authority funded creche, for women training in non-traditional skills—the very training and retraining required to break down job segregation in the work place—and moved the training places to a college which does not have the atmosphere in which women can learn about non-traditional skills and where no creche places are available.
In the work place, women continue to earn less than three quarters of a man's wage. The equal value amendment of 1984, which the Government deliberately made unnecessarily complex and weighted against women, has failed to provide a satisfactory outcome in the first case ever taken. Indeed, the tribunal rulings in this and other test cases have driven a coach and horses through both the letter and the spirit of the law.
The Government's dual attack through privatisation and deregulation in the work place has robbed women of health and safety protection and of protection against unfair dismissal and against exploitation and poverty wages. Privatisation and deregulation of public services such as transport have robbed women of affordable, safe public transport, on which women are much more reliant than men because fewer women have cars to take them through badly-lit, poorly patrolled streets which are fast becoming no-go areas for lone women walking at night. If we are to protect women against rape, which has been much in the news recently, it is crucial to provide safe, well-lit streets and estates. It is about time we woke up to the fact that much of our environment is daunting to women and old people and causes problems for them.
The caring and service sectors of employment, in which many work unsocial hours, have been further singled out


by the Government. In those sectors women form the vast majority of a grossly undervalued, low-paid work force. Yet the Government's abolition of the fair wages resolution, coupled with, for example, contracting out hospital cleaning has led to massive cuts in pay and conditions of employment for women who are already among the lowest paid.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend aware that she does not have to go further than the House to find difficulties that arise for women? Those who serve in the Refreshment Departments of both Houses of Parliament are offered transport home only after 11.30 pm. Those women who are kept here late and are low paid must hope to get public transport and I can assure her that many of them are frightened about that.

Ms. Richardson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. Many have spoken to me about it. Obviously, they are grateful for the provision of taxis, but the service should start earlier. If we had decent late transport and, in some cases women-only transport, they could get home safely. The hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) laughs, but it is not a joke.

Mr. Michael Brown: I am worried about the prospect of too much public transport use late at night because it frightens women. I am not sure that that is the solution because women are worried about safety late at night.

Ms. Richardson: In case the hon. Gentleman does not know, the Government's Sex Discrimination Act 1986 removed protective legislation so women can now work unsocial hours and undertake night shift work, but the Government refused to accept amendments to provide transport late at night. Women must work, and when they work late transport must be provided for them.
To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), there is a great deal of discrimination against women in this place, not just in the Chamber, but among the work force. For a start, we should have a creche here.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is my hon. Friend aware that, because of the provisions of the London Regional Transport Act 1984 and the requirement on LRT to make operating profits, there has been an enormous cut in the number of bus conductors and conductresses in London, resulting in one-person operated buses which has meant an increase in attacks on women passengers on the buses? Is she aware that with the cut in station staff there has been an increase in attacks on women using tube trains late at night? One way to protect passengers is to provide more staff on the stations and the buses. That will help to diminish women's fear of travelling late at night.

Ms. Richardson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The provision of machines is no substitute for people who can look after and look out for those who travel at night.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) referred to the wages councils and low pay. The removal of wages council protection from workers under the age of 21 — two thirds of those affected are women —and the restrictions on wages councils' powers coupled with the Government's denunciation of ILO convention No. 26 have opened up

yet more opportunities for unscrupulous employers to cut wages in areas of employment already known as "sweated labour" which are heavily dominated by women workers.
The Government's attack on part-time workers — almost exclusively women — has been no less remorseless. Those workers' rights — not least, their maternity rights — have been systematically and cynically eroded by the Government. Maternity rights in this country are already among the worst in Europe and if the proposals in the White Paper "Building Businesses…Not Barriers" are ever implemented, the majority of working women will not even qualify for the right to return to work after childbirth.
Part-timers are at present entitled to claim maternity pay and unfair dismissal if they work at least 16 hours a week. Under the proposals, they will have to work 20 hours a week for two years for the same entitlements. Those working eight hours will have to work 12 hours for five years before qualifying. Firms with fewer than 10 employees will be fully entitled to refuse women the right to return to work and anyone wishing to fight for her rights at a tribunal may have to pay £25 for the privilege. Overall, the proposals in the White Paper would mean that 300,000 workers, almost entirely women, would lose existing employment rights. Furthermore, the proposals threaten the whole concept of job sharing. Job sharing has made an important contribution to women's employment, promotion and training opportunities, but the Government have failed to recognise and promote it.
The unprecedented attacks on maternity rights and on women's rights to social security were continued through the social security review and the consequent Act. The abolition of the universal maternity grant, which was discussed at great length only last week and the abolition of the "best 20 years rule" for SERPS, are two examples of how further spiteful reductions in women's economic social security and well-being have been made behind a smokescreen of reform.
On occasions during the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act 1986 the Government discussed equality, but they have not even begun to understand what that word means. Women's needs and aspirations have been further eroded by the introduction of the new availability-for-work test, which is heavily biased towards the removal of even more women from the unemployment register and, therefore, will deprive them of benefits. Not content with merely dismantling women's rights to social security, the Chancellor now intends to follow the trail blazed by the Fowler review with his Green Paper on the taxation of husbands and wives. The proposals for transferable tax allowances, which reject women's rights and their justifiable demand for independence and privacy in taxation matters, are based precisely on the principle that the United Nations declaration sought to eliminate—deliberately creating a disincentive for married women to seek or continue in paid employment.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Is the hon. Lady aware that Denmark has a system of transferable allowances and also has the highest proportion of married women in work in Europe?

Ms. Richardson: I believe that the Danish system is different from the one proposed by the Chancellor in the Green Paper. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that all organisations concerned with progress towards sex


equality—from the Equal Opportunities Commission to the women's national commission and, incidentally, the European Parliament's committee on taxation, chaired by a distinguished British Conservative, Dame Shelagh Roberts — have said "No deal, Nigel." They have rejected the Chancellor's proposals for what they are— continued discrimination against women.
Of course, that is precisely what the Government will and must continue to do because their economic and social strategy depends on creating and maintaining a vast reserve of unwaged women, forced to remain at home to carry out, with the minimum of support, the caring and servicing tasks that are the responsibility of the entire community. That has been ably pointed out by the Audit Commission report on community care, which was critical of the way in which the concept of community care has been approached. The Government fail to acknowledge the value and burden of work that falls to lone women. Let no one forget that the Government fought every inch of the way against amendments that we tabled to the Social Security Bill—amendments that were designed to extend invalid care allowance to married and cohabiting women. The Government capitulated only in the face of another humiliating defeat in the European Court. Moreover, the Government also fail to acknowledge the consistent demands of the community to be allowed to share in the care of their communities.
The Labour-led Greenwich council recognises that 75 per cent, of women are carers and that 50 per cent, of married women between the ages of 36 and 64 can expect to be responsible for caring for an elderly or infirm person. If women have to give up paid work to look after such a person, they are consigning themselves to a lifetime of poverty and isolation. That may well lead to the breakdown of their health and will certainly prevent them from taking any employment opportunities that may be offered. If women cannot cope, they must turn to a Health Service that has reached breaking point.
In recognition of the problems faced by women, the women's equality unit in Greenwich has launched the women's health care project and the carers project, both of which identify and give community support to the economic, social and personal needs of the carers and the people they care for. Such support includes respite care for women who have not had a break or a holiday for a considerable time—in one case 23 years. It also includes day care centres, community transport, purpose-built and adapted housing and training for carers, especially women, who are assumed to be naturally resources.
One of the most amazing things that I learnt from Jackie Drake — who took the test case on invalid care allowance to the European Court — was that, prior to the case, married women who were carers were not allowed to receive or to be offered any training in how to care for an elderly person, but a man or a single woman was offered such training. The implication is that a married woman should know how to lift an elderly or heavy person from a chair into a bath. That shows just how ridiculous matters can be. The projects that I have described are typical of the policies that Greenwich has introduced for women. I wonder whether that is what the Prime Minister and her party mean by a "loony Left" waste of resources.
Greenwich has just announced that, from 1 April this year, there will be no charge for under-fives in its day

nurseries. It also plans to devote 32 per cent, of its social services budget to make more nursery provision available. Women's unemployment in Greenwich went up by 18·2 per cent, in the period between July 1984 and July 1985. Therefore, one can imagine that policies such as those introduced by a good Labour local authority will do much to help women who are seeking work. Those policies have been introduced in spite of the onslaught of cuts that have been imposed by the most centralist and anti-democratic Government that we have ever seen. Very soon, the community in Greenwich will be able to make its voice heard again in the House, and it is fitting that it should be the voice of Diedre Woods, who has always listened to women and responded to their views.
The Government have done nothing for women except to hit them very hard. The Labour party will tackle the discrimination and deprivation that the majority of women suffer, and its decision to establish a ministry for women underlines that commitment. The views of 52 per cent, of the population cannot continue to be marginalised or ignored. All issues are women's issues. There is no such thing as a woman's issue. It is men who set the agenda for women and it is they who decide what are women's issues. I believe that women should have a voice in everything. The next Labour Government will, by their policies, open up decision making so that all women have a voice. That is not only just, but our country will be the better for it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
'welcomes the contribution which Government policies have made in meeting the needs of women, particularly through the increased level and range of health service provision and the encouragement and help given to them to play a fuller role in the community and in employment.'
I find it somewhat ironic that the Opposition should have chosen such an obviously discriminatory title for today's debate, with the two principal Opposition speakers being female. No doubt they were selected from the range of the Opposition spokespeople on their ability and commitment rather than gender. However, one wonders whether the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will be appealing to the Equal Opportunities Commission. I wonder what the reaction of Opposition Members would have been had the Government chosen as a subject for today's debate "Men in the community".

Ms. Clare Short (Birmingham,Ladywood): rose—

Mr. Lee: More seriously, women represent 52 per cent, of our country's population and 43 per cent, of its labour force. Those percentages represent 22·3 million women, of whom 9·5 million are in civilian employment. If one adds to those figures those in self-employment and the armed forces we have, for September 1986, a total of 10·1 million women in employment. However, we hardly need statistics to show that women's well-being and their contribution to the social fabric of the nation and its economic wealth are of crucial importance.
The hon. Member for Barking—I accept her deep and genuine commitment to women's rights—attacked this Government's record on matters affecting women and our attitude towards their wish to play a full part in all aspects of national life. She drew for us a picture of


women's life in the United Kingdom in 1987 and of a Government indifferent or even downright hostile to the advancement of women that I do not recognise, and I am sure other hon. Members do not recognise, and which I am sure few women outside—other than, possibly, the most militant feminist groups—would recognise either.
In fact, for the vast majority of women in this country, life in very many ways has probably never been better. Today, women have far more opportunity to play a full part in society alongside, if they wish, their traditional roles of wife and mother. There are greater opportunities in education. Training and employment—including self-employment, which is proving to be one very effective way of enabling women to combine career and family responsibilities.
In education, it is no longer expected that girls should, in the main, study only a restricted range of subjects and go on to a similarly restricted range of often dead-end jobs, simply to bridge the gap between school and marriage. There were, of course, always exceptions to that general picture, but in today's more enlightened times all girls are encouraged to study the same range of subjects as boys and then go on to the same after-school training or further education. They are also encouraged to consider the whole range of job opportunities throughout industry and commerce.
Women today also have the benefit of labour-saving domestic equipment, and while that does not in itself change the traditional division of responsibility in the home, it has freed women from much of the drugery of earlier years. In health care, too, such strides have been made that the 1987 woman is far fitter than her predecessors.
I agree that there is a way to go before women achieve true equality, but let us not start this debate from a false position. Let us have due regard for the fact that life for the majority of women in unquestionably better. The task now is to see how we can build on that progress.
In employment, the Government are firmly committed to the principle of equal opportunities and to the legislation that gives effect to that principle. The legislation must take a large amount of credit for the improvements in practice and attitude that have taken place over the past 10 years.
Since 1979, we have extended both the Sex Discrimination and the Equal Pay Acts considerably. As hon. Members will know, the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act made unlawful sex discrimination, and discrimination against married people, in employment — including recruitment and promotion, and in training. It also made sex discrimination unlawful in education, the provision of goods, facilities and services and in the disposal and management of premises. The employment provision did not, however, cover firms with five or fewer employees, partnerships of five or fewer — in their treatment of partners—and private households.
The 1975 Act also established the Equal Opportunities Commission. We have, of course, since 1979 consistently supported the important work of that commission and its code of practice, which we were pleased to lay before Parliament in 1985. We have taken every opportunity to commend the code and the work of the commission to employers.
The 1970 Equal Pay Act provided that men and women must be paid equally when they were doing, for the same or associated employers, the same or broadly similar work or work judged equal by a job evaluation study.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1986, which I steered through its final stages in this House, brought the original 1975 Act more closely into line with European legislation. It made it unlawful as from 7 February 1987 for even the smallest firm or partnership to discriminate between men and women. From 7 November 1987, it will give women the right not to be compulsorily retired at a different age from comparable male colleagues and the right to complain of unfair dismissal up to age 65 — while not affecting women's right to draw state retirement pension at age 60, a right which, I know from my postbag, many men would like.
Hon. Members will know that in introducing these changes to the sex discrimination provisions on age of retirement, we were implementing, and very swiftly indeed, the decision of the European Court of Justice in the case of Miss Marshall v. South-West Hampshire area health authority. That decision, of course, also established that public sector employees already have a direct remedy under European law if their employer operates discriminatory retirement ages. I know that many employers in the private sector have already been able to introduce common retirement ages for men and women. I hope that more will be able to do so in advance of the legislative provisions.
The 1986 Act will also free adult women from outdated restrictions on the hours they may work. From 27 February 1987, restrictions in the Mines and Quarries Act 1954 and the Factories Act 1961 will be lifted. Because of the United Kingdom's obligations under the European social charter, the prohibition on women working at night, contained in the Hours of Employment (Conventions) Act 1936, will be lifted on a date to be appointed after February 1988. The hon. Member for Barking has represented that as yet another attack on women's rights and of the Government's determination to oppress them. I tell her that that is not how it is regarded by the many women who, in the past, saw with frustration the men whom they worked alongside being able to earn more in overtime or to gain the valuable experience that was needed to obtain promotion. Such women said, and I agree with them, that they were as capable as men of running their own lives and they did not need the nannying of the restrictions that we swept away.
The 1986 Act also removed, from 7 November 1986, the need for ministerial designation before special training could be provided to help women move into occupations traditionally dominated by men or to return to work after time at home looking after their families—a small, but, I am sure, welcome lessening of bureaucracy.
Since 1 January 1984, women have been able to claim equal pay for work of equal value. The hon. Member for Barking has said that the new legislation on that is somehow preventing women from actually obtaining equal pay. We have never sought to deny that equal value legislation is complicated, bur. this is a complicated area. It is not easy to compare the value of two different jobs — jobs that can require different training and experience.
In framing the new legislation on equal pay, we had to ensure that differences in pay rates could be challenged when the differences aroséfrom sex discrimination, not


when they were necessary for other reasons. The hon. Lady has said that the law is not effective and does not enable women to obtain equal pay. I do not accept that and nor, I am sure, do the 30 ladies at Berry Magicoal for whom, it was reported only last Wednesday, APEX had won a 22 per cent, pay rise through claims for equal pay for work of equal value.
However, I think that we must all recognise that there is a limit to what can be achieved by legislation alone. To change deep-rooted social attitudes needs action on a number of fronts. There has been progress, as the figures show, and the Government have taken many practical steps to promote equal opportunities in the priority areas of employment — and that includes self-employment — and training. I shall say a little about each of those in turn, taking employment first.
In Europe, the United Kingdom is second only to Denmark in women's participation in paid employment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) said. We are the only European country where women's unemployment is less than men's, and between 1983 and 1984 we accounted for over half the Community's total growth in female employment.
In the three and half years from March 1983 to September 1986 alone the number of full-time female employees rose by 362,000 and the number of part-timers by 286,000. During the same period, the number of full-time male employees regrettably fell by 93,000.
Some 44 per cent, of women work part-time. I know some people dismiss part-time jobs as second-rate and unimportant, but I wonder whether they are really in touch with what people want. According to the 1984 labour force survey, over a third of unemployed women were looking for part-time work, and only 8 per cent, of part-time women workers said that they were working part-time because they could not find a full-time job.
The Government welcome the growth of women's employment and want it to continue.

Ms. Richardson: Does not the Minister recognise that it is not part-time employment that we are against? Women, and some men, would like part-time employment. It is a question of the pay and status of that employment. I repeat that, in particular, part-time women workers receive less then three quarters of the average wage of male workers. Is it not about time that the hon. Gentleman recognised that we are against not part-time working but low-paid working?

Mr. Lee: I accept that many part-time pay rates are on the low side, but at the end of the day the rates of pay must depend on what the market can stand and on what individual firms can afford to pay. That is a fundamental economic fact of life.
As I told the hon. Member for Barking in reply to her written question on 12 December, all the enterprise and training schemes in the Government's Action for Jobs campaign are open to women. Women have therefore benefited with men from the £10 billion spent on those measures since 1979, and will continue to benefit from the further £3 billion to be spent this financial year.

Ms. Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I think he has just misled the House. For example, there was a deliberate move by this Government to exclude

women from the community programme, which is one of the major parts of the Government's provision, firstly stopping women registering as unemployed unless they were in receipt of benefit, and then not allowing women onto the programme who were not in receipt of benefit. That was a deliberate exclusion of women. The hon. Gentleman should not stand there and say that women can benefit from all these programmes when his Department set out to exclude women from one of their biggest programmes.

Mr. Lee: The vast majority of our Action for Jobs schemes are available to women, as indeed is the community programme, but the hon. Lady is quite right that the community programme is directed essentially to those whom we judge to be in most need of that help and training. The programme and commitment are not open-ended. One of the factors or strictures that we take into account is that those individuals who are eligible for the programme are in receipt of benefit. What the hon. Lady says is correct, but there is a reason for it.
Before I say more about these schemes, I draw the attention of the House to the dramatic and heartening increase in self-employment which we have seen in recent years and to the encouraging fact that women have been prominent in that increase. Between 1981 and 1984, there was a dramatic jump in the numbers of women setting up in business for themselves — some 42 per cent. Women make up about a quarter of all those who are self-employed. That is almost 700,000 women, around a third of whom were employing other people. The proportion of women on the enterprise allowance scheme has risen from a mere 10 per cent, in 1982 to 25 per cent, today.
In other words, women have taken advantage of the climate we have created for small businesses to thrive. Women who are prepared to take the risk of setting up on their own account clearly have the requisite courage. But the Government recognise that they are not yet getting all the encouragement they might, and often still face scepticism on the part of those with whom they deal. I therefore do urge women starting up or wanting to start up in business to use the help available from my Department's small firms services, local enterprise agencies and the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas, COSIRA. Initiatives to encourage and advise women considering self-employment are also being taken by such organisations as Women in Enterprise, Aston university and the Scottish Enterprise Foundation. The Government fully support these initiatives.
Next I come to perhaps the most crucial areas where the Government can — and do — make an important contribution — namely, broadening girls' horizons and the training and retraining of girls and women, I am pleased to say that there are encouraging signs that job segregation is starting to break down. Between the census years 1971 and 1981—admittedly, going back a few years — the number of women managers and administrators increased by 139 per cent., engineers and scientists by 282 per cent, and construction craft workers by 134 per cent. The actual numbers involved are still regrettably small, but there has been a marked movement, and work-based education and training are essential factors in consolidating and improving upon this progress. The Government will continue to do all they can in these areas.
As I said earlier, attempts are being made to combat sex-stereotyping from an early age. Our policy statement "Science 5–16" proposes that science should have a place in the education of all pupils throughout the years of compulsory schooling. It also encourages positive action to interest girls in aspects of science which they have tended to find unappealing. On training, as I indicated, all Manpower Services Commission training schemes are open to women on an equal basis, and women are encouraged to consider the full range of options available, not just those traditional to their sex. Point taken on the community programme.
The YTS, increasingly recognised by national companies as the main accepted route of entry, is particularly significant for girls, who obtained historically only a tiny share of traditional apprenticeships. In the one-year scheme, for example, 80 per cent, of all young women on the scheme were in employer-led provision, gaining direct experience of industry and commerce. In two-year YTS, with its increased vocational focus, all young people will have the opportunity to acquire a vocational qualification or a credit towards one. This will revolutionise the opportunities which 16-year-old girls leaving school have until now had to obtain such qualifications. Scheme providers are also encouraged to take positive action, where appropriate, and a number of single-sex schemes and schemes with reserved places for girls are now being run.

Ms. Clare Short: Will the hon. Gentleman not admit that YTS absolutely reflects the normal segregation of the labour market for 16 and 17-year-olds, that the overwhelming majority of girls in YTS are doing traditional girls' work, and that YTS has not broken through that barrier. YTS has been a devastating failure in that way, despite all the declarations of intent to use it as a means of breaking down that segregation. Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that that is the case?

Mr. Lee: I cannot accept what the hon. Lady is saying. The figures show, on my understanding of them, that there has been a significant proportionate increase in the number of women in a whole range of training opportunities under YTS, as compared historically with a very small number of women who were involved in traditional apprenticeships in a very narrow range of industries.
To give another example, the MSC runs many "wider opportunities for women" courses, specifically aimed at women returning to the labour market after a period spent bringing up a family. These courses are designed to update skills and job-hunting techniques, to help rebuild lost confidence, and to encourage women to take up jobs in new areas such as the new technologies and management. Over 2,000 places are available every year.
The fact is that the MSC makes strenuous efforts to comabat sex stereotyping and promote equal opportunities in its training provision. It also funds a programme of development projects, designed to demonstrate to employers the benfits of developing women's skill and abilities across the full occupational spectrum. This is vital because, without the necessary training and qualifications, women will find it impossible to move into a broader range of occupations and attain the highest levels in their chosen careers.

Mr. Max Madden: From what the Minister has been saying, am I right in assuming that the Government welcome the appointments of sex equality officers by local authorities to promote the sort of policies that he has been describing?

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman will not lead me into that rather difficult area of local government and local authority expenditure.
We have also supported and continue to support the EOC Women into Science and Engineering campaign and the Women's National Commission's programme of roadshows. These are important to help change attitudes and to widen women's and girls' employment horizons. We are also firm supporters of equal opportunities at the international level. In May 1986, the Government ratified the United Nation convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.
We welcomed the two European Community directives accepted in 1986 — the occupational social security directive and the directive on the self-employed. We also welcomed the European Commission's action plan for women for the years 1986–90 and the forward-looking strategies which came out of the UN conference held in Nairobi in 1985 to mark the end of the United Nations Decade for Women to which the hon. Member for Barking referred. Last December I was pleased to host a joint United Kingdom-EC conference on women and training, which provided a forum for an exchange of practical experience. During the United Kingdom presidency, we also played a leading role in the adoption, last December, of the resolution for a community action programme on employment growth; this contains a number of proposals to bring about greater equality for women in the labour market.
I know that hon. Members opposite and some women's groups outside this House consider that the Government should be doing more to help women. The numerous meetings I have had with women's groups since taking over my present responsibilities some five months ago have shown me that in particular there is considerable concern about parental leave and the provisions affecting women in our White Paper "Building Business…Not Barriers". I know that child care is considered by many to be central to the whole issue of women and employment.
Parental leave, if fully agreed between employer and employee, can be valuable—it was for this reason that I was pleased to open the joint CBI-EOC conference on the subject of parental leave in November last year. It can, however, be only a temporary and partial solution. When parental leave ends, the needs of the child and the requirements of the job remain. Moreover, imposing one form of parental leave by law—as the EC draft directive required — would increase employers' costs and administrative burdens, damage competitiveness and reduce job prospects. It would ultimately be detrimental to the welfare of working parents and their children.
The right approach is surely the one suggested in the EOC's code of practice, which I highly commend. This code makes a number of specific recommendations to do with part-time work, flexitime, personal leave and child facilities. These recommendations give employers and their employees a range of options from which they can adopt those which suit the priorities of the employees and represent what an employer, in the particular circumstances, can afford.
We must strike a better balance between the rights of employees and the burdens on employers, in order to encourage rather than restrict employment opportunities —which will benefit women and men alike. It helps no one if more rights are given to the employed which damage competitiveness and therefore reduce the amount of employment available and the prosperity of us all.
I am sure that we are all concerned that women should be safe both in their homes and travelling to and from their work or indeed for any other purpose. A significant proportion of the hon. Lady's speech was devoted to this subject. We all recognise that women are, sadly, at risk from sexual assault and rape, which can have permanent physical and psychological effects on them. Sexual harassment is also distressing and we wholeheartedly condemn it as a particularly degrading and unacceptable form of sex discrimination.
Case law has shown that the Sex Discrimination Act can provide a remedy where sexual harassment at work lead to serious consequences, such as dismissal or forced resignation. Increasingly, employers and trade unions have been responding to growing awareness and concern by agreeing policies in this sensitive area. This is a welcome development and one, I might add, in which Government Departments are themselves giving a lead.
The Government have also taken action against kerb crawlers to enable women to be freed from oppressive behaviour. In rape cases, the Home Office has issued new guidance to the police on the sympathetic treatment of victims, aimed at protecting their privacy and providing them with the help and advice they need in coping with the trauma of an attack.
It is sometimes suggested, as it was by the hon. Lady, that there should be separate provision to enable women to travel safely. For example, she suggested women-only taxi services and special carriages on trains. The question of safe travel to and from work also came up in the debates on the removal of hours of work restrictions by the Sex Discrimination Act 1986. Special transport facilities for women would be a departure from the fundamental priniciple of the Sex Discrimination Act that men and women should be treated equally and have equal access to goods, facilities and services. However, in publicising the hours of work provisions of the new Sex Discrimination Act, we have reminded employers of the need to consider the availability of transport before introducing changes in women's hours, as well as of their general duties under health and safety legislation to safeguard the health, safety and welfare at work of all their employees.
I know that Opposition Members espouse the idea of a Ministry for women. I must say I find this a curious notion. Why not a Ministry for youth, for the old, or perhaps ultimately even for men? There would be no end to the special groups spanning a large proportion of the population who might equally feel that they should have a Minister of their own if a Ministry for women were ever created.
The Prime Minister has always made it clear that she does not intend to appoint a Minister to co-ordinate initiatives on women's issues. While the Home Secretary has a general responsibility for equal opportunities, each Minister is responsible for developing the policy of his Department to take account of the Government's commitment to equality.
Women, therefore, need not fear that their interests are not adequately represented under the present Government. Moreover, the 1985 Nairobi conference, which I mentioned earlier, demonstrated to us that women's non-governmental organisations needed a channel through which they could obtain the Government's response to issues and in particular to the forward-looking strategies for the advancement of women.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington), the Minister of State, Home Office, was therefore asked to convene regular meetings of Ministers most directly concerned with such issues. The primary objective of the group is to identify those parts of the forward-looking strategy which are already being implemented and, of those remaining, to focus on those that can realistically be achieved. Two meetings of the group have taken place and I can assure the House that, through this forum, Departments will examine carefully policies which impinge on women's interests.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I promise to make my intervention short. What is endearing about the Minister is that he is so embarrassed that he obviously wants to finish. How many people on the working party are women, or would that be too revolutionary?

Mr. Lee: From memory, I believe a substantial proportion.
I would like to conclude by saying that I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Barking's criticisms of the Government's record on the whole subject of equal opportunities and their attitudes to women. I do not, of course, agree with her and am grateful for the opportunity to show the House that the contrary is true. This Government, in fact, have a very good record in this area.
We have, as I have said, considerably widened the scope of sex discrimination and equal pay legislation. We have given women the right not to be compelled to retire before male colleagues. We have freed them from outdated restrictions on the hours they may work. We have given them the right to equal pay not only for the same work but also for the much wider concept of equal value.
We have also played our part gladly and proudly in both European and worldwide discussions of women's issues and how women's opportunities can be improved. I commend our achievements to the House.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I listened with interest to the Minister's speech, which was well put together. Has that anything to do with the quality of the back-up departmental team that he has brought with him tonight? I shall make him an offer in public; I shall give him a Scottish £5 note every time the ministerial advisers' Bench is manned by women to the extent that it is this evening.
I pay tribute to the work done by the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) over many years on this issue. I want to look at the issue from a broader perspective. I read with interest some of the information that Professor Halsey collated and co-ordinated in a recent edition of "Social Trends". Over a 40-year period, embracing Governments of all political views, there has been clear evidence of a profound change in the division of labour. In the mid-1970s he found evidence of a distinct end to the


post-war trend of increasing prosperity. Since then there has been increasing economic retrenchment and polarisation.
Statistics show that more women, particularly married women, are now working, more so in part-time work. There is less childbirth but more illegitimate childbirth, more divorce and conversely more remarriage. There are more single-person households of which a woman is the head. Incidentally, we must also remember that there are now more men inactive economically and spending more time at home.
All the evidence leads me to the conclusion that there have been profound changes since the war in the interrelationships between the family, the workplace and the functions of the state. The changes in society have been moving far ahead of changes in the attitude of people towards women. I regret that the Minister referred only casually and in passing to the fact that we were interested in trying to change people's attitudes. That is the right long-term approach. If I may mildly criticise the motion, it tends to deal only with symptoms. As the hon. Member for Barking rightly said, we will not get to the root cause of all the problems until we find a way of altering people's attitudes.
Obviously, the Government have a role to play. No Government since the war have tackled the problem properly. I accept that it may be fiendishly difficult. The two Ministers taking part in the debate have got different and widely varying responsibilities. The question I put squarely to the Government is: where is the co-ordination of all the useful small but significant improvements that the Minister has outlined in his speech? How can the House have confidence that the Government are tackling the wider issues in the difficult problem of trying to change social attitudes?
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) has taken part in the campaign to try to stop the publication of silly, sensuous photographs in the tabloid press. There are different ways of doing it. One way would be to ban them by Act of Parliament. The most effective way is to give women more economic clout so that women can become responsible for placing substantial advertising contracts with the tabloids, they could then say, "If you do not face facts and remove those offensive pictures our advertising will be removed." That would be the best way of solving that problem. We must tackle the fundamental problem, not the symptoms.
While we should discuss the need to increase economic and educational opportunities, until we manage to change the hierarchy, structure and fabric of society to give women more sway and influence directly in their own right, the problem will still be with us, and we will be having debates about it for the next 40 years.
We must of course in the meantime face the shorter-term issues. On security, women, particularly elderly women, are victims of vicious crimes because they are more vulnerable than men. Again, I use the crime of rape to illustrate my point. One can fulminate, quite rightly, about the inadequacy of some of the sentences that have been dished out. I agree with that and do not want to give any other impression. But we shall not begin to tackle the problem of rape until we start to look at the fundamental reasons why inadequate men seek to dominate and control women. In my view, it is a question not of sexual gratification, but of the inadequacy of the men concerned, who are driven by the uncontrollable urge to brutalise and

dominate women. That is the principal motivating force behind rape, and unless we start to look at and understand the deeper psychological reasons and causal forces operating in society we shall never contain and diminish the incidence of rape.
We cannot simply deal with the symptoms and confine ourselves to ameliorating the maternity situation without also looking at the whole question of paternity leave. It is very important that we involve the father as much as the mother in the early days after childbirth. Neither do I see any reason at all why we should not accept anything less fundamental than a 50 per cent, representation for women appointed to public bodies such as quangos, some of which do very important and effective work. We should follow the example of other countries, such as the Scandinavian countries. They are showing a clear lead to the rest of the European nations in the fundamental approach they take. We in the United Kingdom are now lagging very seriously behind.
I want to say a word too, about the specific issue of employment. Nursery education, child minding and respite care are absolutely vital in a context, to which the Minister alluded, in which more and more women are entering the work force. According to my figures, 70 per cent, of women with children now work part time. Against that background the most immediate and effective thing that the Government can do is to look at nursery provision, provision of official child minding and respite care for these working mothers. Nothing would give them a better chance of flourishing in the workplace.
I am very disappointed that the Government have for the past two years set their face against the EC directive that would legally oblige employers to give part-time workers pro rata conditions. There is no justification at all for the Government's blocking that move. Part-time workers often have no annual leave entitlement—that is my experience locally in my own constituency—and are rarely considered for proper further training. That is regrettable. I hope that the Government will continue to scrutinise and review the position that they have to date adopted on that matter.
I am also very worried — this has been mentioned before — about the provisions contained in "Building Business … not Barriers". This also needs to be looked at again by the Government, and I hope that they will do so.
I served as a member of the Standing Committee that considered the Social Security Act 1986, and I confess that I am seriously concerned about some of the impact that Act will have particularly on maternity grants and allowances. Perhaps the Minister will say a word about that in winding up. I freely acknowledge the value of the work of the maternity emergency campaign launched by the maternity alliance in trying to make that issue a matter of public concern and debate.
The Government's record with regard to maternity and paternity rights is appalling, particularly when compared with the situation in Sweden where women can have up to one year of maternity leave, in Denmark where they have six months and in Italy where they have 11 months. Furthermore, two of those countries allow people to receive full-time pay during such leave.
With regard to employment, a lot more could be done by the Government in terms of encouraging career enhancement. I came across an instructive example of this quite recently in Bradford, where a training course was


being run for cleaners to be upgraded to caretakers, and many of them have now been employed as caretakers. That may seem a very small step, but in terms of career enhancement for the people involved it was a significant one.
Provision by the Department of Health and Social Security for cervical cancer screening and some of the very important preventive measures that cannot at the moment be undertaken for lack of resources, such as the establishment of well-women clinics within the National Health Service, the provision of better care for women, support, counselling and health education, are long overdue. I have high hopes that the hon. Lady who will be winding up will, in her time in the Department, try to ensure that great priority is given to these matters.
I was pleased that the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) mentioned transport, which is a very important issue. Only 31 per cent, of women have a driving licence and only one third of those who have, have exclusive access to a car. I come from a rural constituency where there are special problems because of the longer distances that have to be travelled. In an urban context, however, there is now a real problem of security and giving people the right and the freedom to move about in the hours of darkness. I believe that in the fulness of time the privatisation of the bus services undertaken under the Transport Act 1985 and the withdrawal of subsidies will have a very adverse effect on that situation. The Government are failing to ensure freedom for women to lead their own lives and travel in security. The Transport Act will be responsible for much fear in that connection in the future.
I believe that the Government should consider the possibility of setting up specialist transport groups, even if they are voluntary groups. I know that in Stockwell, for example, a women's lift service has been started, which is an exclusively women's service. I can understand the problems with making public services available exclusively for women but I think it is quite right that in certain circumstances there should be support for groups which with their own cars provide a service which gives confidence to local people and enables them to travel about. That is a very important concept which the Government should consider.
At the end of the day we have to keep an awareness of the context of the argument in the long term. I fully accept that legislation can never be the whole answer. The insidious discrimination that will always apply on a personal level will be a constant problem, but the Government could do more than they are doing at present in terms of framing a broader strategy and trying, in the longer term, to co-ordinate activity in all these areas to try to get a better deal for women.

Mrs. Marion Roe: It is now more than 10 years since the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 passed into law. In that time the position of women in society has changed markedly in many respects and surprisingly little in others. The truth is that, as has already been said, legislation cannot change attitudes overnight. While it may sometimes come about because people's views demand it—witness council house sales—it is fair to say

that a significant proportion of the population, both male and female, still have very fixed opinions about what they see as the proper role of men and women.
That is a matter for their personal choice, but for the House it is important that we remove those remaining blocks to proper freedom of choice for women and at the same time ensure that opportunities for women are known and taken up. I do not believe that this can be done by coercion. To follow the route that has been advocated by some Labour councils—setting up women's committees on the model devised by the Greater London council— seems to me to be too adversarial.
Women have always played a substantial role within the life of local communities. Fundamentally that will not change, because the needs of children make particular demands upon mothers, but new technology in the home, new technology at work and the increasing involvement of men in child care present opportunities which we as a society certainly should not miss.
Britain needs to develop the full potential of its citizens, and in that respect education is vital. Real progress has been made, but we must face the fact that although girls tend to do better at school, they still gravitate away from the sciences. The technical and vocational education initiative and the youth training schemes are big steps forward, and so is the news that the number of women studying engineering and technology in higher education has doubled in the past 10 years. In employment terms that is important. For people to realise the full scope of their opportunities they need to perceive that no area of employment is barred to them. The figures suggest that changes are under way.
The professions — not long ago entirely male dominated — reflect the changes. A quarter of the number of general practitioners, and those training to be accountants, and 40 per cent, of those entering the legal profession, are women. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee) said, over 500,000 women found employment between March 1983 and December 1985. More than 60 per cent, of women are in employment.
International comparisons are perhaps complicated by other factors, but that is a high figure for Europe. The Department of Employment has certainly assisted in this regard. I refer to the extension of the Sex Discrimination Act 1986 to cover small firms in industries such as mining, and the small but influential "wider opportunities for women" courses run by the Manpower Services Commission. Yet, despite a wealth of flair and good ideas, only 2 per cent, of company directors are women.
Management is often criticised for its failings—less so now than in the past, I am glad to say — but it is indefensible that the talents of half the population should be under-utilised. It may be that the boardroom has resisted change for reasons of caution, or simply that few women have put themselves forward, but one cannot escape the strong feeling that the underlying cause is bias against women. In part, the answer is for women to demonstrate that they are equally capable in business. Entrepreneurial ideas are certainly not restricted to men. I am particularly encouraged by the drive led by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier), the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, to increase the number of women entrepreneurs.
There can be no doubt that the problems that women face in setting up small businesses are, more often than not, the same as those faced by men. Nevertheless, it is not


difficult to see that, if old attitudes creep in, it could prove to be a big hurdle. For example, bank managers are reluctant to lend money because they perceive projects devised by women as inhererently larger risks. I welcome the Department's initiative in jointly funding a research study to examine the problems that women may face.
Two further economic statistics are important. First, over the past 10 years the percentage of women granted mortgages has doubled every year. They form half of our first-time buyers. Secondly, the stock exchange has published research showing that 42 per cent, of shareholders are women. It will be interesting to know the figures for British Telecom, TSB and British Gas. The conclusion must be that women have a substantial and increasing involvement in capital ownership. That is a welcome development.
The tax system still acts as a large disincentive. Married women have no privacy in tax matters and are still treated as their husbands' chattels by the Inland Revenue. Without entering into a discussion on the disincentive to marriage that this provides, with the Sex Discrimination Act over 10 years old, it is certainly high time that changes were made. The proposals outlined in the Government's Green Paper on the reform of personal taxation need to be implemented as soon as possible. They seek to place individuals on an equitable tax footing and to affirm within the tax regime the importance to society of marriage, without placing women in a second-class status.
The diverse activities of women in local communities —frequently in addition to their role in child care, and often doing voluntary unpaid work, such as looking after dependent relatives or neighbours, for example — leads me to believe that the transferable allowance system favoured by the Government is the right way forward rather than increasing the child benefit the application of which, in my view, is too narrow. The progress of the past 10 years has been particularly encouraging. Let us hope that in 10 years' time we shall be able to say the same.

Miss Betty Boothroyd: My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) has demonstrated just how much the quality of women's lives depends on a good and effective social system. She has shown how the Government's callous and careless neglect of the Health Service, and of other public services, too, and their mean and mediocre provision for social benefits have brought unnecessary strain and hardship to family life. I shall try to follow my hon. Friend's analysis in relation to the Health Service which, of course, is of special importance to women.
First, I shall reverse the argument. I remind the House of just how important women are to the National Health Service. It depends on women's work. The Employment Gazette, in the employment category headed, "Medical and Health Services" shows that late last year just over 1·25 million people were employed full time in those services. Of those 1·25 million, over 1 million are women. More than 80 per cent, of those employed in medical and health services are women. If we add part-time employees in the Health Service, the proportion is even more striking. There are 485,000 part-time employees in the health services, of whom 452,000 are women; that is over 93 per cent, of part-time employees are female. It is an enormous percentage.
The overall figures show that nearly 1·5 million women work in the medical and health services of this country. They form 84 per cent, of all employees and they do every kind of job, with one exception. The one job that women do not perform in the Health Service is that of management. Two weeks ago a comprehensive survey of women's careers was published in the Health Service Journal. It reported:
Despite legal bars to discrimination on the grounds of sex, women in management in the health service still fare worst, they are held back by persistent myths about their abilities, potential and commitment.
So women clean hospitals, cook food, prepare and store medical records, nurse patients, take X-rays and medical samples and analyse them. They work as physiotherapists chiropodists and speech therapists, and a few women diagnose illness and some perform operations, but they do not manage in the Health Service.
According to a Government document published by the Cabinet Office Management and Personnel Office, called "Public Bodies 1986", the DHSS appoints 123 public bodies to give it advice or to discharge executive functions. It seems that, in his wisdom, the Secretary of State for Health has appointed 115 men, but only eight women, to chair these bodies. The Department appoints tribunals to judge people's claims to health and social security benefits. It appointed 650 men, but only 80 women, to chair those tribunals. If, therefore, a women comes before a tribunal, she can expect her claim and needs to be judged predominantly, perhaps even exclusively, by men.
If we look further at the Government's appointments to regional and local health authorities, we find that they have appointed 228 men to chair them, but only 38 women, so the National Health Service, which recruits more than 80 per cent, of its labour from women, recruits its senior managers almost exclusively from men. That is quite ludicrous.
Apart from the work of women who are directly employed in the NHS, the nation's health depends upon the skills of women and upon the daily application of those skills in countless other ways that are of value to their families and to the community. Ante-natal and baby and child care takes place in the home, and care and attention are provided mainly by women to elderly members of the family. In many instances women give support to and help the elderly and the sick in the neighbourhood in which they live.
Women make daily choices about medicines and treatment for a huge range of personal and family illnesses. They determine the standards of hygiene for the family and the action to be taken over dental health and the prevention of disease. Furthermore, along with teachers, they are on the alert for signs of drug abuse among the young, and women typically have responsibility for the choice of children's shoes. Many hon. Members may think that it is ridiculous to cite children's shoes as an example, but shoe manufacturers and chiropodists do not think that it is ridiculous to do so. They readily acknowledge that this fact, more than any other, determines the foot health of the nation. Women are in the front line, too, when emergency treatment is needed by a member of the family or by a neighbour. More often than not, it falls to women to summon expert help when the situation gets beyond them.
Those are just some of the ways in which women contribute to health care, yet those factors are ignored in the Prime Minister's world of market economics. No account is taken of them.
Another public service sector that is sustained by the jobs of women is education. It is the largest single employer of women. Last September, 1,026,000 women were full-time employees in that service; that is, 68 per cent, of all full-time employees in education were women. In addition, the service employs 559,000 women part time. If we include the part-time employees, we see that women make up nearly three quarters of the labour force in education.
Besides the women directly employed in the service, women contribute an essential service to our nation's education every day of their lives. Outside school, they teach children good manners and self-discipline, they help with homework and projects, they sew costumes and make props for school plays, they find jumble for school sales and they find books for libraries. Education is clearly another vital public service that depends on the work of women both outside as well as inside the professional structure.
Despite education being the largest single employer of women, not one woman has been appointed by this Government to chair the 29 committees within the education sector. The chairs of all 29 of the public bodies that are listed in the Government's own publication have gone to men, and the membership of these advisory and executive committees consists of 507 men, but only 71 women.
Put together, women's daily contribution to health care, education and other areas of public policy represents a colossal economic and social asset, upon which the nation manages to place no value at all. Furthermore, no Government have attempted to elevate the status and role of women on a non-commercial basis. This has led to two major weaknesses in our national life, and it has helped to sustain taxation and social policies that are unfair discriminatory or downright stupid.
Other hon. Members have referred to the taxation system. I want to refer to it, too. First, our tax and social security system treats married women not as free individuals, with lives of their own, but as chattels of men. The system not only denies married women equality in taxation benefits, but denies them privacy in taxation. This Government have shown that they do not intend to reform the system. That is a great pity, because, both as a working married woman and as a tax barrister, the Prime Minister must be very familiar with these problems. I should have thought that a Government headed by a Prime Minister who has some expertise in these matters would introduce reforms.

Mrs. Llin Golding: That just shows what a nice person my hon. Friend is.

Miss Boothroyd: How kind. I know that the incoming Labour Government are committed to the principle of independent personal taxation of men and women. We shall match that, over time, by the provision of social security benefits for women in their own right.
The second weakness in the system relates to our social policy. The nation expects women automatically to shoulder the burden of care for children or elderly

relatives, yet it provides no financial help if they are forced to make alternative arrangements to cope with an emergency. If, therefore, a single parent—nearly always, though not always, a woman—becomes too ill to care for the children, she has to rely upon the good will of relatives or friends. No financial help is provided to pay for someone to care for those children in their own home. She is expected to put them into care. That solution is not only most upsetting for children and mothers alike but is also the most expensive solution for the nation to have to bear.
There is another more general loss to the country from the failure of successive Governments to place a value on women's work. It means that Governments have been working in the dark when they have tried to assess the cost and values of their policies. By placing no value on women's work, they have cut out of their analysis the essential economic and social activities of more than half the population.
The first task of an incoming Labour Government should be to prepare a proper national economic audit of the value of women's unpaid, everday work. That audit would give national recognition to the value of women's work in the community and it would also be of considerable assistance in the development of policies to support that work.
Finally, I turn once again to this enlightening and illuminating Government publication. I recommend it highly; it ought to be on the reading list of every hon. Member. It sets out those who are appointed to public bodies. Under the heading "Cabinet Office", which includes the Management and Personnel Office, six major commissions report to the Government. As many hon. Members would expect, the chairmen of five of those commissions are men. A women has been appointed as chairman of one commission, but there are no prizes for guessing which commission that is. It is the Women's National Commission. Even the Prime Minister does not have the gall to appoint a man to that position.
According to this publication, the Government have appointed 36,000 men to public bodies, but they have seen fit to appoint only 8,500 women to those same public bodies. I cannot but be reminded of the words of John Stuart Mill in "The Emancipation of Women". He said:
There is not such an abundance of talent about in the world that we can afford to restrict our area of choice to one half of the available supply.
Although he wrote those lines about 150 years ago, they still hold true today. This Government need to be reminded of them.

Mrs. Anna McCurley: As the only Scottish woman in the House of Commons, I hope that the House will forgive me if I initially narrow my area of argument towards north of the border.
I am confident that the Government are making steady progress towards caring for the specific needs of women, particularly in the Health Service. As I am speaking about Scotland, probably one of the reasons for that progress is that we place more emphasis on that issue in Scotland because we have a relatively better and more efficient general practitioner service. There are more female GPs available for women in Scotland. Indeed, we are moving towards a 50:50 intake of female representation in Scottish


universities medical faculties. There is no sign of any discrimination against women entering medicine in Scotland.
The important point is that the Government have increased spending on the National Health Service in Scotland by 20 per cent. in real terms since 1979. The Scottish health education group is working on health programmes specifically designed for women. Once again, that is probably because we have more efficient general practitioner services which are frequently based in modern health centres and provide information leaflets about the health risks that women face and how those problems can be tackled.
The Opposition frequently cite prevention as the Cinderella of the Health Service. There is considerable evidence that the Scottish Home and Health Department has been highly conscious of the economics of health and has directed resources towards that.
The Scottish cervical cancer counselling service has been reviewed by the Scientific Services Advisory Group and evidence in those matters is being updated. There is no doubt that cervical screening is an exceptionally useful and effective form of prevention. The figures speak for themselves. In Scotland in 1979, there were 252,000 smear tests. In 1985, there were 356,700.
Screening for breast cancer is a slightly more difficult issue. The trouble is that, unlike cervical screening, where the pre-cancerous cells can be more readily detected, some doubts have been cast on the efficacy of screening and self-examination. Therefore, in Edinburgh we have been involved in major trials along those lines and 30,000 women from GP practices are involved in one trial at an initial cost of about £300,000 which has been overseen by Professor Sir Patrick Forrest, who was the chief scientific adviser to the Scottish Home and Health Department.
I do not really want to concentrate on Scottish systems, but I believe that the Scottish education system, which has been maintained over the years principally by women, has produced some interesting statistics with regard to high and low grades. The findings clearly show that, the difference in ability of women over men is beginning to demonstrate itself clearly. The figures show that, although there may be more passes for boys in examination results, the better grades are established by girls. That is clearly shown when the top marks in the examination system are considered.
The Scottish Education Department has done much to avoid the gender stereotyping and there is a positive move to encourage girls to enter the engineering and scientific professions. More women are now engaged in legal training in Scotland than men.
I believe that no other constituency Member is better qualified to discuss women in work than I. In my constituency and particularly in Inverclyde, because of the high concentration of micro-electronics, women are very much in demand for work and particularly for part-time work. I have been astonished at the fact that, while there is a huge demand for nursery facilities in that area, there is complete inequality of provision in certain areas and especially in my constituency. That is probably because the Labour-controlled Strathclyde council makes it virtually impossible to establish nursery or playgroups other than those controlled by the council. Time after time, women have asked at my surgeries for increased nursery provision and have even offered to take on the role themselves. However, they find the local authority unsympathetic and

thoroughly unhelpful. That is a strange attitude for Socialist authorities to take. They should welcome the support that these women would give to that vital service for women out at work.
Just before Christmas, I sponsored a seminar in the House for the British Federation of University Women. They discussed ways to expand women's horizons in work. We must never forget that most women have two full-time jobs. We must ensure that stress does not become a major health risk for women. It is unpleasant to consider that the life expectancy band is narrowing. Women used to have a far longer life expectancy than men. However, life expectancy for men is increasing, while the comparable rate for women is slowing clown. I believe that that is due to stress diseases.
More women are falling foul of coronary heart disease and alcoholism. One of the worrying statistics is that women, because they are under increased stress, are taking to the weed. An increased number of women are smoking. We must pay strict attention to that.
It appears that there are minuses in the equation of giving women equal opportunity. It appears that we are giving women the equal opportunity to die earlier. That is probably why I support the availability of part-time jobs for women. These jobs would ease the strain for the many women who want part-time jobs. Part-time jobs should not be condemned by the Opposition, as they are on many occasions. However, it is a fact that someone who is bored is open to more stress. Some jobs that women are required to do are the very soul of tedium. It is very important that education for women is stressed and encouraged at a high level than at present.
I want to refer to a point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) and the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson). I could not agree more that women have grave problems in maintaining their personal security these days. I know that it is a terrifying experience after leaving the House late at night to enter a sparsely populated area in poorly lit streets. I do not welcome that nightly event. We must not simply encourage better street lighting, although that is one answer. As the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire said, we must get at the root of the problem and discover why there are so many sexual attacks, why rape is on the increase and why women are the targets of that most disgusting form of aggression.
I do not want to assume the role of Anna Freud, but I believe that some attitudinal changes are highly necessary. The Scottish poet Burns was once quoted as saying:
Then gently scan your brother man, Still gentler sister woman".
Self-respect and mutual respect between men and women nowadays are sadly lacking. My next sentence will be heresy to the Opposition. Sometimes women's attitudes nowadays might just scare the pants off men. Basically, it comes down to the home, and irrespective of what the Opposition believe, the majority of women are still the home-makers. Women are still the stable, nurturing element in the life of children. If there are any financial inducements to enable women to remain at home, they should not be cast aside or dismissed as a cheap way of reducing the unemployment figures. In terms of employment, for women's health and for the benefit of women, we should offer them the choice of remaining at home or going out to work.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The windup speeches are expected at about 9.30. Four hon. Members wish to speak. If they feel able to restrict themselves to 10 minutes each, it will be possible to call all of them.

Mrs. Llin Golding: My hon. Friends have said that women are the cornerstone of the nation. Who could disagree with that? Their influence is strong because of their role in the family and their contribution at work and in the community. It makes sense for Government to provide support for women, to allocate money for nursery care, nursery education and materity rights and to provide for care of the disabled, the mentally handicapped and the elderly. It makes sense to provide reasources for training and retraining for women.
The contribution that women make throughout their lives at home and at work should be recognised by all. The Government do not recognise it. After a battle, women are at last able to claim invalid care allowance—if the person for whom they care can pass the stringent test for attendance allowance.
I have a letter from a woman in my constituency whose father died after a long, painful illness. His wife was 83 years of age and felt his death very severely. Her caring daughter decided to give up her job and care for her mother. When she did so last July, she decided to apply for invalid care allowance. The application was turned down because her mother was not getting attendance allowance. It will come as no surprise to hon. Members to learn that she did not manage to obtain attendance allowance either at the beginning or on appeal.
The old lady is proud. She will not apply for constant attendance allowance again, because her pride will not let her. That is because she sees the allowance as charity. The pride of many women stands in the way of their entitlement to claim the £5 heating allowance. One elderly disabled woman said to me: "I need £536 in the bank for my funeral. That is what I have. I cannot manage on any less to bury me and I cannot allow anyone to pay for my burial." She could not get the heating allowance. How can the Government claim to be a caring Government? Do they not see, do they not listen or are they so concerned with those who have that they cannot give time to those who have not?
It is well known that women live longer than men. To reward them with the single rate of retirement pension provided by the Government shows a complete lack of appreciation of their true worth to society. How can women avoid the loneliness and fill the vacuum of widowhood when they constantly worry about keeping a roof over their heads? Surely they should have sufficient pension to avoid that feeling of insecurity. It is to the Government's shame that they will not even provide them with a free television licence.
The women in my constituency are proud and hardworking. They ask not for charity but for a fair share of the nation's wealth which they helped to create. Under this Government, they are not getting their fair share. The role of women is undervalued. They are used and often abused. No political grouping is better at that than the alliance, as I know to my cost from my experience in the Newcastle-under-Lyme by-election. What dirt could the alliance find

to use against me—that I was too Left-wing, that I belonged to a loony Left council? No, it could not throw those things at me, nor could it throw at me that I had not already fought for the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme and understood their problems. Could the alliance throw at me that I did not know anything about what the job involved? No, it could not. It decided to attack me on the only thing that was so obvious that I could not deny it—that I was a woman and in their eyes could not become a candidate unless I had the help of a man.
The alliance did not care that from beginning to end its campaign was based on degrading women. Did it care that its campaign denied the entitlement of a woman to her own life, to be able to make her own contribution? No, it did not. The alliance did not care that its campaign was an insult to all women. All it cared about was winning the seat, and it did not care about what it did or how it insulted women so long as it enabled the alliance to get another man into Parliament.
The Government may not pay much attention to the needs of women, but at least they do not publicly insult them, like the alliance. Women need to get into public life and all politicians and political parties should support them. We should encourage and support women because we need them in public life. Women still have a long way to go to reach equality, and it is a long and lonely way.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) launched a powerful attack on her alliance opponents. [Interruption.] I am not sure that the members of the alliance are friends. All of us who had to fight the alliance know the dirty tricks that it uses and that is regrettable. The hon. Lady spoke movingly about the role that women play in public life. We all echo that, but the Labour party will be in severe difficulties in the next election if it tries to approach these problems from the standpoint of positive discrimination. We do not believe in discrimination for or against women. We believe in equality of opportunity for all.
The tax treatment of women is monstrous, especially in the way the tax system discriminates against mothers who wish to stay at home. Motherhood at home is one of the most demanding and difficult of all professions. Women should be rewarded and not discriminated against, as under the present tax system.
It is interesting that our present tax system is based on an 1806 statute when married women were considered to be an appendage of their husbands in property terms. Few married women worked. The first world war saw a considerable increase in the number of married women working, although it is interesting that by 1921 only 10 per cent.—[Interruption.] I did not catch what the hon. Gentleman said. If he wishes to intervene, I shall be delighted to let him.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: T1 hon. Gentleman must mean that few upper-class women worked. Working-class women have always worked in the factores, on the lines, in services and elsewhere.

Mr. Leigh: I was talking about married women. I was not talking about either upper-class or working-class women. The statistics that I was just about to quote, which come from a Government paper, show that by 1921 only


10 per cent. of married women, whether working-class or not, were working. The number increased substantially to 44 per cent. in 1971 and to 52 per cent. in 1980. Many more married women are now working. but the tax system is still based on the work system that operated in 1806.
It is unfair that, if a married man and a married lady are working, they receive two and a half times the single person's allowance. If only one partner is working, they receive one and a half times that allowance. It is monstrously unfair that the tax threshold for a married man in work is ludicrously low, at only £3,655, whereas if both partners arc in work it is £5,900. He therefore pays a high marginal rate of income tax.
The burden of the present tax rate falls especially hard on the married working-class man, who may be on a relatively low income and whose wife is at home, perhaps looking after a large family. Under the present tax system, he is very much discriminated against. I know that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) believes in married life and in giving working-class wives real opportunities. It is unfair that the system discriminates against them in the way that it does.
Another interesting statistic is that as many as one in 20 of all families—750,000 people—would receive 80 per cent. of the income they currently receive if they did not work, bcause the marginal rate of tax and benefits is so high.
Everything that I have said points to the clear need for reform. I follow what my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) said, in that whatever Government are returned in the next election—of course, I hope that it will be a Conservative Government—they must look carefully at the proposals in the Green Paper which was published last year. Those proposals are interesting and, contrary to what the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said, the variable allowance proposals have received considerable support. She misquoted Dame Shelagh Roberts. The House of Lords Select Committee on the European Community states:
Others were in favour of transferable allowances. Dame Shelagh Roberts commented (Q 252) that transferable allowances would he consistent with the European Parliament's view that the system should be neutral as between one or both spouses working".
Other witnesses who spoke in favour of the transferable allowances mentioned in the Green Paper, were the National Board of Catholic Women, the British Federation of University Women, the Institute of Taxation and the National Federation of Womens Institutes.
There is a considerable body of support in favour of transferable allowances. I follow my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne in speaking very much in their favour. What needs to be done is simple. The single person's allowance has to be raised from £2,325—if we are talking about the present tax year—to £2,995. If only a married man is earning, his allowance has to be raised to £5,990 and if a married man's wife is working too, their allowances would be £5,990, so there is no discrimination against women under the variable allowances which are mentioned in the Green Paper, if they wished to stay at home. Why should women be forced to go out to work as they are under the present system? They should be given an absolute right either to stay at home or to go out to work. as they wish.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) was present during a debate that I initiated last year on the integration of taxation of benefits. He tells me it was a good debate. It is nice to be congratulated by the alliance spokesman. We agree that we must move much faster towards integration of the two systems if we are to iron out the sort of problems that I have mentioned. I should like to move faster than the Government, but proposals contained in the Green Paper are a step in the right direction. I commend them to the House.

Ms. Clare Short: I suggest to the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) that there is another way of looking after the interests of married couples and couples with children—abolish the married man's tax allowance and tax men and women who are married or who are not married equally, but increase child benefit so that those who have children to care for have more financial support. That is Labour's policy and the desirable way forward in considering the interests of families with children who are one of the poorest groups in society. That is a better approach than considering the taxation interests of some extremely well-paid women. Those are the women about whom the hon. Gentleman is probably more concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) outlined the enormous damage that has been done to women's interests by the Government. That damage clearly shows that the token number of women in positions of power who do not represent the interests of all women is not an advance. The Prime Minister is devastating example of that. Everything for which she stands, everything that she advocates and the way in which she has changed our society have been damaging to the interests of women.
Polls on the issues that concern women reveal interesting points. Women are massively in favour of getting rid of nuclear weapons in Britain—much more so than men. Women are not as attached as men to the notion that, if someone else has a gun or a bomb, they have to get one, too. Women are concerned about the escalation of the arms race and the risk of nuclear war increasing. There is an enormous well of support among women for nuclear disarmament and Labour's policies on it.
Women are enormously concerned about the effects of and damage to health caused by nuclear power. That concern was heightened at the time of the Chernobyl disaster and, more recently, by the evidence that families living around nuclear power stations are likely to suffer illness in greater numbers than other families. Worrying figures suggest that leukaemia occurs more often in those areas. That issue concerns men and women, but disproportionately women. Women are interested in getting rid of nuclear power and finding safer forms of energy that are not damaging, to health.
Women have a major interest in preventive health care, to which a number of hon. Members have referred. We cannot move our Health Service on from its present position, with the battering that it has received lately, into prevention if it is chopped up and privatised. Preventive care cannot be organised in a system that relies on private medicine—BUPA and so on. We must group everyone together and start screening for all sorts of illnesses. That would prevent illnesses. For example, if we could improve


the coverage of vaccination against rubella, the number of disabled children born in Britain who must be cared for would decrease.
Women are in favour of better care for children, partly to relieve themselves of the burden of having to care all the time for children, partly so that they can go out to work and increase the family income and partly because it is good for children. Evidence shows that good child care and pre-school care are good for the development of children. Providing such care on a universal basis throughout society can only be done through the public sector; yet the Prime Minister and the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security—the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie)—are anxious at every turn to cut public services, and to privatise and go for individually bought services. This means that the quality of pre-school care for children, which is demanded by many women, cannot be improved.
Women are concerned to improve care for elderly people. About 70 per cent. of care provided for elderly and disabled people is provided by women at home. We need to give more help and support. It is obviously a better form of care than building old people's homes where people will be lonely. If the burden is to be carried by the women in the family, let us employ more people to go into and out of households to give support and help. This would generate jobs and improve the quality of life of those women and the elderly people for whom they care.
Women are massively and overwhelmingly low paid. The Government have deliberately set out to increase inequality and to push down the wages of the low paid. They have taken a series of measures, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking—most recently and most disgracefully, weakening the powers of the wages councils to protect the wage levels of some of the lowest paid people in society, who are overwhelmingly women.
The issues that concern women and the policies advocated by the Government—who are, ironically, headed by a woman—move in opposite directions. Women want less spending on nuclear weapons and nuclear power, better public services, better standards of employment for everybody, the elimination of low pay and decent, well-paid work options for everyone.
Women are on the move. They are grouping together throughout society. They are not just saying that they want things from Government; they are moving forward and organising things for themselves. On the matter of rape, the group that has moved forward to provide a service for women who have been subjected to rape—women locally—has had little support from the Government. It has had to fight for a few resources to provide a centre where women who have been raped can come together; a centre where women who have been battered can come together; and a crisis telephone line. Groups of women up and down the country are providing a service for women who have been raped.
I have been enraged by the comments of Tory Members and the Prime Minister following the Ealing rape case. The only suggestion that they had to make was that sentences should be increased for the tiny number of rapists who are caught. They outbid each other in the call for longer and longer sentences to give a pretence and a token of concern about rape.
What do we know? We know that the overwhelming majority of rapes are never reported to the police—rape crisis centres up and down the country tell us that. That is because of insensitive policing and humiliating treatment by the police of women who have been raped, which makes it too fearful a prospect.
We have seen the humiliation of rape victims in the courts. The enraging thing about the Ealing rape case was the comments of the judge—which are typical of the comments that are made over and over again by our judiciary—that rape is easily overcome, that the woman had done well to get over it so rapidly and that now the victim was OK. The suggestion was that aggravated burglary was a more serious crime than a vicious and vile rape. The Government and the Prime Minister cannot escape from that by calling for longer sentences. The guidelines in our system place more emphasis on aggravated burglary as a more serious crime than rape. That is the judgment of our system.
If we want to prevent rape, rather than to pretend to women that we are concerned about rape by calling for longer sentences for the few men who are caught, what sort of measures should we adopt? We should approach the rape crisis centres and ask the women who work with victims of rape what the answer is. They will tell us that a transformation is needed in police procedures. There have been some calls for that by the Government, but they could go further. Women should not be intimidated or humiliated by the police if they report a rape.
We need to re-educate the judiciary. The judiciary should undergo a compulsory course that includes a session with women working in rape crisis centres before being allowed to hear more rape cases. We need more women judges.
Conservative Members talk about the increasing numbers of women coming into the legal profession. There is an overwhelming majority of women teachers, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) said, but there are very few women head teachers. We cannot assume that just because many women are entering the legal profession as junior solicitors, there will be a lot of senior women judges in the future.
We should change the law. It is not an offence for a man to rape his wife; there is no such thing as rape in marriage. That is typical of how our system values rape. If a woman is married, she can be raped and the man will never be charged. That law should be changed to give equality.
We should get rid of porn in our daily press and the culture that that generates about women—that they are there to be lusted after, groped and taken by men.
The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) has talked about women who have been raped as being soiled for life. What an insult that is to the women who have survived rape and managed to be brave and strong enough to put their lives together. The hon. Gentleman appeared on page three of The Sun with his favourite page three girl, yet he tries to pretend that he is concerned about women's rights and the humiliation of rape.
We should get rid of porn in the daily press, provide more support for rape crisis centres throughout the country and establish a commission of women who are working in the area, particularly women working in rape crisis centres, to look at international experience and make all the necessary changes in terms of safety, public attitudes and the law so that rape can be prevented. It is


not good enough to call for longer sentences in the minute number of cases where someone is convicted of a rape offence. That is to pretend to care, but not to demonstrate any real concern.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: There are many ways in which women have to face intolerable burdens. One of the basic securities should be that of being safe in one's own home from crimes of violence.
About 14 months ago in the House I raised with the Home Secretary the then sentencing policy for rape, which was quite incredible and was leading to shorter and shorter sentences being imposed for the most heinous crimes. At that time a junior Minister at the Home Office told me that it was his intention to introduce guidelines. That he did, circulating them to the judges. Therefore, it was all the more devastating when recently there appeared to be a classic case of the judiciary deliberately ignoring or at least misunderstanding, the straight instructions that it was getting from the House of Commons and the Home Secretary as to the way in which the offence of rape should be dealt with.
I am afraid that I learnt long ago that the House of Commons becomes indignant in great bursts and then forgets any of the basic problems that should concern it. Some time ago, before the recent appalling case in Ealing, I tabled a series of questions yet again on the same basis to the same Department. The answers that I received were revealing. I asked what had happened since the last time I questioned the Home Office about setting up rape crisis centres. I asked how much money and support were provided for them. There is no point in hon. Members saying that they are concerned about those social problems if they are not prepared to put their money where their mouth is.
In reply to my questions I was told that the training of police officers, which is fundamental, is a matter for chief constables. That is so worrying that a young copper had enough common sense to write in to his own police newspaper this week saying that when faced with a rape victim on his own in a station he felt totally inadequate and unable to cope. That boy had enough common sense and intelligence to realise the gap in his training and to make it specific. That was the response of the Home Secretary and the Government, who care so much about the role of women. That was the answer that I received nearly 14 months ago.
Following that answer, I wrote to nearly every chief constable in Britain asking what their response was going to be. I asked about their training programmes, how many of them had victim examination suites and how many were prepared to back up the sort of problems that they envisaged with some sort of specific working party to ensure that they were doing something about the problem. The answers were revealing. Some chief constables could hardly bother to answer, some sent back highly intelligent and sensible letters, putting the matter into context in their own counties, and some pointed out to me that the Women's National Commission had already done a considerable amount of work in looking at the question of rape.
I looked again today at what the Women's National Commission has had to do. I asked whether it had received any request from the Government to follow up or do any

additional investigating on the subject of violence against women. I was told that the Metropolitan police are trying to follow up the report and that some
members from the WNC are planning to meet with the chief soon to discuss any findings 
Even though the Home Office has produced a new set of guidelines for the police, as far as I can see it has not set up a working party within the Government or talked to the other relevant Departments. The Department of Health and Social Security, which has responsibility for counselling and research projects on rape, said:
The London Rape Counselling and Research Project…the only centre financial supported by this Department, is in receipt of a 3-year grant of £22,000 per annum payable with effect from 1 April 1984.
It also said that it has some other grants. In effect, because of inflation, that represents a cut every year in it existing moneys. The Department says that that is meant to help only with national publicity and promotion work. No funding has been given for the training of counsellors, for the setting up of the proper professional rape crisis centre help, or for the proper training processes for those who have to deal with rape victims.
The Metropolitan police proposed eight examination suites for London. I went to see one when I originally started this investigation. Three have now been opened. They are in Brent, Hendon and Barkingside. The next one to be constructed will be located in south London, and the building on that should begin later this year. Others are planned, but they will not be in operation until 1988. Other police forces have made specific efforts to see the work that is being done by the Metropolitan police and are overhauling their own training methods, but those measures are not enough.
The House must learn that it cannot just talk about rape when there is one specific nasty case that upsets the sensibilities of some Conservative Members. The House must be concerned about rape every day. Hon. Members must be concerned about what happens to women when they leave this building and have to travel home on public transport late at night with drunks and the people who may attack them, and without adequate support staff on the stations. Hon. Members must also be concerned about those who have responsibility for training police officers, and they must find the money to create proper support systems. Above all, the House must stop talking about the problems of women as if we are pets to be thrown a little bone.
We have been given one debate, which has been introduced by the shadow Cabinet, which, if I may say so, has nothing to be proud of, because it does not contain any women. When one considers what there is on the Government side of the House, one can understand the problems it faces in including women politicians.
We should not discuss this matter other than in a serious manner. Women are grossly under-represented in the House and throughout our public life. Women are still treated by the House of Commons as if they are creatures who can be trotted in for the odd debate that is held in some spare parliamentary time when they will not cause too much trouble, and when only women Members will be allowed to take part. That is a disgrace and the Minister made his embarrassment about that clear. I sympathise with him on that. However, these matters will come up again and again. Women will be content only when they have equality of treatment and, above all, the equality of real respect.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: This has been an extremely interesting debate and one of the most interesting that we have had in the House for some time. It was the intention and the wish of my hon. Friends to explore as wide a range as possible of the matters that affect women and are affected by women, and that has happened in the debate. Every speech has been different and has dealt with a different area, and each speech has been well-informed, cogent and has made points of considerable importance to women and, thereby, to our position in the country.
As many of my hon. Friends have said, it is unfortunate that we have seen the independence and freedom of most women steadily eroded under a Government who are led by our first woman Prime Minister. Sadly, the Prime Minister is typical of a certain type of woman. This type of woman —and there are many men like this too, especially in the House—thinks that having climbed the ladder she should pull it up after her. That philosophy is consistent with the entire outlook of the Prime Minister and, indeed, with that of many, if not all, of the members of her party.
When hardship and discrimination are experienced, as they are to a greater or lesser degree by all women, there are two alternative reactions. The first is to say, "That is not going to happen to me again." The second is to say, "That should not happen to anyone. What can I do, or what can we do together, to see, not just that I avoid a repetition of that hurt, but that it is not inflicted on others?" Those different reactions are fundamental and form the basis of the opposing philosophies and policies that we see reflected in the House. Conservative Members, especially the Prime Minister, appear to suggest that as long as he or she makes it, it does not matter whether anybody else is given the same opportunities. The Opposition's reaction is that there is a need to help others to be as fortunate as oneself, and particularly to help others who are not as fortunate.
When we examine the lives of most women compared with those of men, we observe that they have greater family responsibilities, greater difficulty gaining promotion on equal terms, lower pay and, sadly, all too often, an assumption of male superiority, for which the evidence is all too clearly lacking. Those disadvantages which women have long faced have all been exacerbated under the Government. Low pay is not low enough for them—they press for it to be reduced. Part-time work is not incurred under sufficient handicaps—they must be increased and rights weakened. Single parents on supplementary benefit struggling to get training or to keep jobs will see their last chance removed when the Government stop them offsetting expenses, such as child care costs, against income for the purposes of supplementary benefit. Carers have seen the demand and need for community care increase, while the support services that may help people to cope are cut and cut again. The DHSS may press for more spending, but the Department of the Environment demands less and blames councils which try to maintain their services for increasing rates when in reality reduced Government support is the biggest single cause of that increase.
Nursery schools and places are cut and in some places day nursery places close and disappear all together. Free school meals are cut, and will be even less widely available.

Under the Social Security Act 1986 many low-income families will face substantial costs because of the removal of even those free school meal facilities which now exist and there will be greater pressure, again principally on women, to provide from an already inadequate income.
Even the taxation changes that the Government are considering will, it is widely believed, most benefit women who unlike any of us who are fortunate enough to be in this place, choose or are pressured to stay out of the labour market. Those changes are likely thereby to increase that pressure on women. If women leave the labour market, the Department of Employment will harass them with demands for assurances that they can instantaneously arrange child care, irrespective of whether jobs are available, in an attempt to make quite sure that even if they want or need work they do not show up on the register of the unemployed.
Several references have been made to the recent rape case, and my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) has highlighted clearly the great disparity in this place between words of horror and actions which may help to alleviate some of the problems. One of the most appalling things about this case—I do not apologise for returning to it briefly—was that the horrendous personal violence against the woman was regarded less severely than the offence against property. We have come a long way since women were automatically regarded as property, but it is a sad commentary on how far we still must go that there are men in high positions whose respect for women ranks below their respect for property.
Sadly, continued pressure from the Government for cuts in public transport has increased the danger for women who need to work, large numbers of whom must travel on public transport, often at hours when there are few other travellers and little protection. Several hon. Members referred to the changes likely to come on London Transport. I recall my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) some time ago asking how that would affect women.

Ms. Clare Short: We have all slipped into the danger of talking about rape as if it always happens in dark streets by inadequate, funny men—[Interruption.] I am not trying to suggest that the Minister is inadequate. He talked about inadequate men committing rape, but in reality a woman is more likely to be raped by someone in her family or a man with whom she has had a relationship. Rape occurs in all classes and backgrounds and we must not talk as though it is committed on the streets only by inadequate men. Society is riddled with it. All sorts of well-placed men indulge in rape.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend is right. Rape and other crimes of violence do occur, and I am surprised that Conservative Members, and especially a woman, find that amusing. My hon. Friend is correct. Violence often occurs within a family. These acts are exacerbated by the lack of any support services to which women in such difficult circumstances can turn.
It is a sad commentary on our society—although I welcome the initiative, despite the problems that may occur—that it falls to a television journalist to highlight the problems that children face. They are also subject to the kinds of attacks to which my hon. Friend referred. I


accept my hon. Friend's point. It is also right to stress the dangers that are likely to follow because of the pressure that Government cuts are causing in public transport.
My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) referred to the cut in the numbers of conductors and conductresses. I am not suggesting that the presence of a conductor is always sufficient to deal with problems that may arise—we all recognise that that is not so—but support is derived from the presence of another human being, rather than that human being watching a remote-controlled camera and who may notice something happening in enough time to say—"Look, Fred, someone is being attacked on platform 4." That is not very reassuring for either men or women who will be faced with the increasing frequency of cuts in public transport provision in the way that is intended.
The Government have claimed, and will no doubt continue to claim, that they do not have a bad record on the range of policies that have been covered by this debate. That claim does not stand up to examination and I should like to give some evidence to prove that. Yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, who will reply to this debate, was asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking to list the actions that the Government have taken in the past seven years, through the Department of Health and Social Security, that have been of benefit to women. The answer was a list of half truths. I use that description, not just in the pejorative sense—although it is justified—but because it is a literally accurate description. It was a list of half truths and it enables one to understand the value of the maxim that, in court, one should give the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, rather than merely edited items that may be convenient.
The answer that my hon. Friend received suggested that there are more doctors and nurses in hospitals and the community. However, I would have thought that the Minister was aware that those statistics are highly dubious and reflect a reduction in the hours normally worked rather than an increase in the numbers employed. The answer suggested that hospitals are dealing with more cases, but there is growing anxiety about the speed of discharge from hospitals to enable them to cope with more cases. Hospitals are under pressure to increase their efficiency and to cut overheads, and that results, far too often, in an increase in hardship and pain to many patients. In some cases it means an increase in costs for further medical treatment for those who must return to hospital because they were discharged too early because of the pressure for beds.
The answer referred to the work of the Maternity Services Advisory Committee and the fact that it has produced three reports on aspects of maternity care. I do not recall that that committee advised the Government when they decided to change the pattern of maternity grants and maternity pay which resulted in 93,000 women losing their right to maternity grant.
The answer referred to the Asian mother and baby project. As far as I can recall, that project operates in only two or three areas on a pilot basis, and I believe that I am right in saying that the cost of this project falls on the district health authorities rather than on the Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. May I gently correct her

regarding the Asian mother and baby link project? It is not operating in two or three areas, but covers a substantial number of areas, and I believe that 13 different projects are under way.

Mrs. Beckett: I think I am right in saying that it covers only two or three health authority areas. I shall refresh my memory later with the information sent to me from both the hon. Lady's and my health authority. Wherever else the scheme may operate, it is not in our health authorities. Indeed, I understand that my health authority is eagerly awaiting a reply from the hon. Lady on how speedily we can expect the scheme.
The hon. Lady said in her answer that health authorities have been required to install computerised call and recall schemes for cervical smear tests. Indeed, that has been required, but health authorities have not been given the money to do it. They have not, in fact, received any assistance other than exhortation from the Government. I think that we can suspend judgment on the Forrest report, although we are still awaiting it, until we know the Government's reaction to it.
The hon. Lady was reduced to listing the health education booklet that has been published during the past few years, ending—more or less—by taking credit for the fact that there has been greater equality of treatment in benefit claims between men and women. However, once again she failed to mention—I do not know why—that mostly that has involved a levelling down of entitlement rather than a levelling up. Therefore, whichever sex was receiving the worst treatment, that became the norm, or, at best, some intermediate point between the two. I can certainly say with confidence that on no occasion was there a levelling up so that everybody gained the same improvement in benefit.
The hon. Lady, like all her hon. Friends, makes much of the fact that under compulsion from the EEC there were improvements such as the award of invalid care allowance to married women. She passes over, without any mention, the fact that the losses of benefit to women as widows, mothers and retirement pensioners—all of which have taken place during the past few years, and are particularly evident in the Social Security Act 1986—have passed by the hon. Lady and those who drafted her reply.
The truth is that many of the problems that face our society are harder to resolve because of lack of experience of the voice and of the contribution of women when decisions are being made. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) superbly highlighted, in the many areas that she quoted, the way in which women are not represented in the seats of power, even where those women are the backbone and the cornerstone of the industries or the services that are being controlled. I stress the plural. It is the contribution of women that is lacking, not just the one token woman, who is expected to express the full range and views of all of her sex, although I hasten to add that even one token woman is better than none.
The fact is that women continue to suffer disadvantage, and under this Government their position has become significantly worse. The need is for a Labour Government to reduce and to remove the extra disadvantages that are in place, and that becomes daily more urgent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I agree with the


hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that this has been a most interesting short debate, which has covered a wide range of topics. It is a pity, therefore, that so few Opposition gentlemen have bothered to come to support their ladies in the excellent job that they have done. I counted four hon. Gentlemen at the start of the debate, there were none in the Chamber by 8.10 pm and there have been only two for the majority of the time since then—one of whom was the Opposition Whip, who has just returned to his place.
I was pleased to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), many of whose points are being taken into account. I was also pleased to hear the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley), who was right to suggest that, in many ways, Scotland was giving the lead in health care. I have an invitation to visit Edinburgh to see what is being done—

Mr. George Foulkes: Oh, no.

Mrs. Currie: Yes, I intend to take up that invitation soon.
The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde mentioned the high intake of medical students in Scotland. I wish to put her right by pointing out that in Great Britain as a whole, the intake of medical students is now 46 per cent. women, and some 1,800 women a year are now entering medical school. The percentage of doctors who are women has risen steadily year by year, both in and out of hospitals. We look towards good service from those very capable people.
I wish briefly to respond to some of the comments made. I am not sure that I quite understand the point made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) so, if I may, I wish to write to him on the issues that he raised about maternity provision.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) was very concerned about rape, and that requires an immediate response. We all share her concern about rape, and many of the comments that she made about it not always happening in dark corners and not always being carried out by strangers were absolutely right.
I think that many of the hon. Lady's critical remarks about the police are very out of date. It is worth pointing out, for example, that the victim in the Ealing vicarage case particularly praised the care and consideration that she received from the police. My Department funds a number of voluntary rape crisis centres and other organisations in this field, including the Women's Aid Federation, which is a national umbrella organisation that helps and supports refuges for battered women and their children in England—and I am due to meet that federation next week. We also fund the rape counselling and research project. So we are trying to do our bit in that area.
As to the remarks of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) on appointments, I say to her, please watch and see how we make progress on that, but I am not prepared to recommend in my Department the appointment of women for the sake of having more women—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am only prepared to recommend that we have women who can do a proper job in exactly the same way as anybody else.

Ms. Richardson: What makes the hon. Lady think that most women in this country cannot do a job?

Hon. Members: She did not say that.

Mrs. Currie: I share the feelings of hon. Ladies opposite who do not like token women. I am not going to appoint them.
Could I go on to the remarks of the hon. Lady for West Bromwich, West on the alleged lack of equality for women in claiming social security benefits? The only significant areas of social security where differences now remain are beneficial to women. We have a lower pension age, but we get the same pension on our own contributions. We receive widows' benefits although there are no widowers' benefits. The married women's pension is paid to a woman in her own right on her husband's contributions even if she has never paid a penny of contributions.
If the hon. Lady wishes to abolish benefits based on deprived rights—which I think is what she is saying—then she would be disadvantaging millions of women both above and below pension age. As for the various things that we have managed to do in terms of social security, I listened with amazement to the criticisms being made about the introduction of invalid care allowance for married women. What we did was abolish a particularly nasty little piece of discriminatory legislation which was left over from the last Labour Government. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady says that that happened because the EEC told us to. It is nice to see her conversion to supporting our membership of Europe. I wish we heard it more often.
We have received in response to our introduction of the invalid care allowance for married women more than 100,000 claims. We have also gone further and abolished residual effects of the married women's half test for pensions. More than 35,000 women have benefited directly from that. Another 42,000 women have a new tax advantage. That was something else that was left over and it was a pure piece of discriminatory legislation against women brought in by the last Labour Government. Some of the smaller changes in the Social Security Act and previous legislation, such as removing discrimination and allowing either partner to claim—when before it was men only—will benefit many women and their families.
Let me pick up one of the points made about violence to staff. We all share and deplore the anger of women and indeed of men against violence towards all staff, male and female, in the Health Service, the social services departments, social workers, home helps, meals on wheels workers, nurses—everybody. Last December my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State convened a conference of representatives of management, staff and the professions in the NHS, social security and the social services. Following this conference, the DHSS committee on violence was established under the chairmanship of my noble friend, the Baroness Trumpington.
The aim of the committee, which had its first meeting on 6 February, is to pool the knowledge and experience of all three services to ensure that effective preventive measures are taken. We will do all we can to put matters right. We look to the support of the Opposition in all the legislation that we are trying to bring in against violence and criminal acts, so as to put peoples' minds at rest and at peace.
Let me take on the main theme of this debate on health and well-being. It is a matter not of half truth but of fact,


that this Government have spent record amounts on health and welfare, that this Government have employed and are employing record numbers of people in the Health Service, and that this Government are looking after record numbers of patients.
Women, who are the main consumers of health care since we live longer than men, have been substantial beneficiaries all round. When we took over in 1979, we found that in Great Britain the Labour Government, for all their talk, had been spending less than £8 billion a year on the Health Service. This year, we are spending nearly £19 billion. We have just been allocated another £1 billion. Next year it will be £20 billion. [Interruption.] In real terms, that is a jump of a quarter. If I may put it in more simple language for some Opposition members, for every £4-worth of service, for every £4-worth of drugs and for every £4-worth of treatment that the Labour Government bought, we are buying £5-worth. We are making every pound work much harder, and that is right.
Employment in the Health Service has also leaped. We have some 60,000 more nurses and midwives in the Health Service. Less than half that increase is due to the changes in hours. It is to the credit of the Government that we were prepared to fund the changes in hours that are to the benefit of the staff concerned. We have some 5,500 more doctors and dentists, and that number is not affected by the changes in hours. We have more physiotherapists, more occupational therapists, more speech therapists, more community nurses and more community psychiatric nurses; we have more of just about everything.
Opposition Members should acknowledge all that. Most of all, we have more patients. In 1978 in England alone we looked after 5 million patients. Last year there were 6 million in-patients; we must add to that another 1 million day patients and 37 million out-patients. That is what we have been doing.

Ms. Clare Short: Everyone in the country knows that the Government are very good at fiddling figures. Surely the Minister agrees that the quality of our health care has to compare with the demand for care. If we have an aging population, we have to provide more care. All over the country there are longer and longer waiting lists for hip operations and wards are being closed for periods of time. She knows the children's hospital in Birmingham; we recently had that problem there. She cannot pretend to the nation that there have not been cuts in the quality of the Health Service in proportion to the need and the demand.

Mrs. Currie: The hon. Lady clearly has not heard the announcement that was made today about waiting list moneys, some of which will affect her constituency.
Let me give the hon. Lady some figures that we did not draw up. These are the results of a joint survey by Marplan for the National Association of Health Authorities and the Health Services Journal which was done last year about attitudes towards the Health Service. Of those questioned, 75 per cent. said that they felt that the Health Service in their area was good, very good or extremely good; 87 per cent. said that they were satisfied with the service that they were getting from hospital, and 88 per cent. said that they were satisfied with the service that they were getting from their general practitioner. That means that we have 6 million satisfied customers in the Health Service, and 6 million satisfied customers cannot all be wrong.
It all has to he paid for. One danger that the country would run if the Opposition got in and had the

opportunity to try to run the Health Service, is that they would immediately lose £500 million from a reduction in charges. Of course, they would then have to try to explain that away, as they brought in cuts such as I saw as a health authority member back in the 1970s—the last time Labour was in control.
In October last year I was asked to take responsibility for women's health. The House might like to know what we have been doing since. This was the first time ever that a United Kingdom Government had decided that women's health needed special attention. I have set up a group of senior officials within the DHSS to pool the whole range of issues covered by the Department which affect women's health, and to advise Ministers. The core of the group, which includes two deputy secretaries, is a small team of medical, nursing and administrative staff, but it also draws on others throughout the system when necessary to provide expertise on a whole range of matters. They have done an enormous amount of fact finding and I am most grateful to them. We do let the men in. I do not believe in discrimination.
The group's role is, first, to identify health matters which affect women and to develop an awareness of those health needs which are specific to women; secondly, to explore gaps in provision and, I hope, to promote good practice; thirdly, to develop links between individual projects and services to ensure that they are seen as part of a whole, not just a series of pigeonholes—as we have heard in the debate tonight—and not just in a reactive way, responding simply to the demands of pressure groups because I think that we can do it a lot better than that; and, fourthly, to encourage women to take a more positive approach to their own health, for example in taking up screening programmes, and thereby to encourage them also to realise their role in the promotion of the health of their families.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Will the hon. Lady now say exactly what further she is going to do on exfoliative cytology for carcinoma of the womb and also what extra steps are being taken to avoid mastectomies? Is there going to be some further screening for other age groups than those at the moment?

Mrs. Currie: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will come to some of those in a moment. Let me touch briefly on one or two health issues which I think are of importance to women.
On perinatal mortality, for example, we have seen an astonishing achievement. In 1979, 10,000 babies a year were dying at or near their birth time. Now, it is just over 6,000 and the percentage of live births of babies that die within the first week of birth is now dropping. That is a major achievement. Among the poorest groups in our society, the perinatal mortality rate now is better than it was on the average of the last Government. So there is a tremendous success there.
The position is similar regarding immunisation and vaccination, which have been briefly mentioned. We seem, thank goodness, to have avoided a whooping cough epidemic this winter because a substantial number of babies and children are now protected. In 1978 the take-up of that vaccination was 31 per cent. Now it is 65 per cent. and we see the results in the children who do not get sick.
The rates of acceptance for some vaccination programmes are as high as 85 per cent. and I am delighted


to say that the highest rate of all the acceptance rates is 86 per cent. for rubella vaccination among teenage girls. That will avoid them having to suffer the misery of that infection and will help to protect their babies as yet unborn.
We have mentioned briefly the main issues of breast and cervical cancer. My group has established that in preventive terms we need to look at three cancers—breast, lung and cervical. We have received the report of the Professor Forrest group. It is undergoing detailed consideration and we hope to make some announcements soon.
On lung cancer, I hope that we can raise women's awareness, for we are extremely concerned. The number of women dying from lung cancer is up 20 per cent. since 1979. It is now killing 10,000 women a year in England and Wales. The risk of heart disease and strokes among women who are both on the pill and smoking is ten times the risk when those factors are absent. [Interruption.] We therefore look forward to the active support of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who is shouting out, in all our campaigns to get women—Labour, Conservative and everybody else—to give up smoking as their menfolk have.
On cervical cancer, I have heard a load of sanctimonious rubbish from the Opposition. If they believe all that, why did they not do something about it when they were in power? Cervical cytology has been available in this country for more than 20 years. It took a Conservative Government in 1971 to decide to introduce a national call-recall system in Southport and it took another Conservative Government in 1981 to decide that we could do better and that local schemes were the way to do it.
I have some successes to report. Barnsley family practitioner committee, which introduced its scheme in January 1985, tells us that it has a 75 per cent. response rate. Gloucester FPC, whose schemes have been in for nearly two years, has an 84 per cent. response rate. Devon FPC, whose schemes have been in for two years, has a 78 per cent. response rate. There are now 49 schemes up and running—that is more than half—covering 106 district health authorities. We have a tremendous amount of progress to report.
I shall refer to one of the most telling comments that have been made. The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) said that Labour would have a Ministry for women because "women should have a voice in everything". That is absolutely right. That is just the point. That is why women should not be shunted off into a separate Ministry. It is all a load of humbug. The Labour party does not really believe it. The leader of the Labour party is a man. The whole of the shadow Cabinet, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich knows, are men. Not one women was elected by the PLP. There are two hon. Ladies present who—[Interruption.] Out of a total of 24 principal spokesmen in the Labour party, 24 are men, and the only one who is on the list is the hon. Member for Barking, and she is stuck with women's issues.
It goes right through the Labour party. I have the Labour party's glossy new booklet, entitled "Investing in People", that came out in September. It says wonderful things such as:

We'll support the wider provision of Well-Women clinics and greater access by women to female doctors.
Hon. Members should look at the picture of the doctor they show he is a man.
I have made one small mistake. I said that the leader of the Labour party is a man. I wonder whether that is true. A woman with strong views has been going around the country making speeches about what the Labour party will do if the nation ever re-elects it. She has been in my constituency, too. She is a passionate supporter of the CND and a committed opponent of the country's defence strategy. But she is not a Member of the House or of the shadow Cabinet, and she has never stood for election as anything such as a councillor or a trade union representative.

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose—

Mrs. Currie: I do not mean the hon. Lady. The Labour party is being led by a woman, but she has not been elected to anything. She is the lady who makes the breakfast in the Kinnock household. That is who is leading the Labour party, and she is leading it by the nose.
Our view about the role of women is different from the Opposition's view. It is closer to that of the bulk of our people. Women are citizens, first and foremost. We have the same interests and the same needs as everybody else. We are just as interested in tax cuts, controlling expenditure, getting interest rates down, the cost of fuel—we help to pay the bills—the building programme for roads, the standards in our schools, and what Mr. Gorbachev is getting up to. We are not a different species and we are not a problem. We have rights, but we have obligations as well. We have heard precious little tonight about the obligations of women as citizens and their responsibility to make a contribution to society.

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose—

Mrs. Currie: If the hon. Lady, who is shouting at me, is an example of what the Labour party thinks about the higher standards of womanhood, I am not surprised that she got the sack from the Labour Front Bench.
It is wrong to split society in the way that the Opposition would. It simply ossifies distinctions, creates differences, and makes more of a gap and not links. The Opposition's policy is a load of innacurate nonesense.

Mr. Derek Foster: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House proceeded to a Division:—

Mrs. Dunwoody: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take it when the noise dies down.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I understand that I must remain seated, Mr. Speaker, to raise a point of order at this time. Is it in order for a Minister to make a totally unacceptable attack upon someone who is not present in the House, who is not a Member of it and who has no way of repudiating very personal attacks from that Dispatch Box?

Mr. Speaker: I repeat what I said this afternoon, that I am not responsible for what is said in the House, as long as it is in order. The Minister was in order. Clear the Lobbies.

The House having divided: Ayes 185, Noes 240.

Division No. 94]
[10 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Garrett, W. E.


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Godman, Dr Norman


Alton, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Anderson, Donald
Gould, Bryan


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Gourlay, Harry


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hamilton, James (M'well N)


Ashton, Joe
Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Hardy, Peter


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Barron, Kevin
Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith


Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Haynes, Frank


Beith, A. J.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bell, Stuart
Heffer, Eric S.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)
Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)


Bermingham, Gerald
Home Robertson, John


Bidwell, Sydney
Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)


Blair, Anthony
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Howells, Geraint


Boyes, Roland
Hoyle, Douglas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Hughes, Roy (Newport East)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Janner, Hon Greville


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
John, Brynmor


Bruce, Malcolm
Johnston, Sir Russell


Buchan, Norman
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Kennedy, Charles


Campbell, Ian
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Kirkwood, Archy


Canavan, Dennis
Lambie, David


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Lamond, James


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Leadbitter, Ted


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Leighton, Ronald


Clarke, Thomas
Lewis, Terence (Worsley)


Clay, Robert
Litherland, Robert


Clelland, David Gordon
Livsey, Richard


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cohen, Harry
Loyden, Edward


Coleman, Donald
McCartney, Hugh


Conlan, Bernard
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Corbett, Robin
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Corbyn, Jeremy
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Maclennan, Robert


Craigen, J. M.
McNamara, Kevin


Crowther, Stan
Madden, Max


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)
Martin, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Maxton, John


Deakins, Eric
Maynard, Miss Joan


Dewar, Donald
Meacher, Michael


Dixon, Donald
Meadowcroft, Michael


Dormand, Jack
Michie, William


Dubs, Alfred
Mikardo, Ian


Duffy, A. E. P.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Eadie, Alex
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Eastham, Ken
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Faulds, Andrew
Nellist, David


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fisher, Mark
O'Neill, Martin


Flannery, Martin
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Forrester, John
Park, George


Foster, Derek
Patchett, Terry


Foulkes, George
Pavitt, Laurie


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Pendry, Tom


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Pike, Peter


Freud, Clement
Prescott, John





Radice, Giles
Steel, Rt Hon David


Randall, Stuart
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Redmond, Martin
Stott, Roger


Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)
Strang, Gavin


Richardson, Ms Jo
Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)


Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)
Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)


Robertson, George
Thorne, Stan (Preston)


Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)
Tinn, James


Rogers, Allan
Wallace, James


Rooker, J. W.
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)
Wareing, Robert


Rowlands, Ted
Weetch, Ken


Sedgemore, Brian
Welsh, Michael


Sheerman, Barry
White, James


Sheldon, Rt Hon R.
Wigley, Dafydd


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)
Wilson, Gordon


Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)



Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Snape, Peter
Mr. Ray Powell and


Soley, Clive
Mr. John McWilliam.


Spearing, Nigel





NOES


Alexander, Richard
Conway, Derek


Amess, David
Coombs, Simon


Ancram, Michael
Cope, John


Arnold, Tom
Cormack, Patrick


Ashby, David
Corrie, John


Aspinwall, Jack
Couchman, James


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Cranborne, Viscount


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Critchley, Julian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Crouch, David


Batiste, Spencer
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bellingham, Henry
Dorrell, Stephen


Bendall, Vivian
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Benyon, William
Dover, Den


Best, Keith
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Durant, Tony


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Blackburn, John
Emery, Sir Peter


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Evennett, David


Body, Sir Richard
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fallon, Michael


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Favell, Anthony


Bottomley, Peter
Forman, Nigel


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Bright, Graham
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Brinton, Tim
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Grant, Sir Anthony


Brooke, Hon Peter
Greenway, Harry


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Browne, John
Grist, Ian


Bruinvels, Peter
Hayes, J.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Henderson, Barry


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Hickmet, Richard


Bulmer, Esmond
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Burt, Alistair
Hirst, Michael


Butcher, John
Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Hordern, Sir Peter


Butterfill, John
Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)


Carlisle, John (Luton N)
Irving, Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Knox, David


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Carttiss, Michael
Lang, Ian


Cash, William
Latham, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lawler, Geoffrey


Chapman, Sydney
Lawrence, Ivan


Chope, Christopher
Lee, John (Pendle)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cockeram, Eric
Lester, Jim


Colvin, Michael
Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)






Lilley, Peter
Patten, Christopher (Bath)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Pattie, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Lord, Michael
Pawsey, James


Lyell, Nicholas
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


McCrindle, Robert
Pollock, Alexander


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Porter, Barry


Macfarlane, Neil
Portillo, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Powell, William (Corby)


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Powley, John


Maclean, David John
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


McLoughlin, Patrick
Price, Sir David


McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)
Proctor, K. Harvey


McQuarrie, Albert
Raffan, Keith


Major, John
Rathbone, Tim


Malins, Humfrey
Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)


Maples, John
Renton, Tim


Marland, Paul
Rhodes James, Robert


Mather, Sir Carol
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Maude, Hon Francis
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Mayhew, Sir Patrick
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Mellor, David
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Merchant, Piers
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Robinson, Mark (N'port W)


Mills, Iain (Meriden)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Miscampbell, Norman
Rowe, Andrew


Monro, Sir Hector
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Ryder, Richard


Moore, Rt Hon John
Sackville, Hon Thomas


Morris, M. (N'hampton S)
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)
St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.


Murphy, Christopher
Sayeed, Jonathan


Neale, Gerrard
Scott, Nicholas


Nelson, Anthony
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Neubert, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Newton, Tony
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Nicholls, Patrick
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Norris, Steven
Shersby, Michael


Onslow, Cranley
Silvester, Fred


Osborn, Sir John
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Ottaway, Richard
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Page, Sir John (Harrow W)
Spencer, Derek


Page, Richard (Herts SW)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)





Squire, Robin
Walden, George


Stanbrook, Ivor
Walker, Bill (T'side N)


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Wall, Sir Patrick


Steen, Anthony
Waller, Gary


Stern, Michael
Ward, John


Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Warren, Kenneth


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Watson, John


Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)
Watts, John


Stokes, John
Wells, Bowen (Hertford)


Sumberg, David
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Taylor, John (Solihull)
Wheeler, John


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Whitfield, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitney, Raymond


Terlezki, Stefan
Wiggin, Jerry


Thomas, Rt Hon Peter
Wilkinson, John


Thompson, Donald (Calder V)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)
Winterton, Nicholas


Thurnham, Peter
Woodcock, Michael


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Yeo, Tim


Trotter, Neville
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Twinn, Dr Ian



Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Tellers for the Noes:


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Mr. David Lightbown.


Waldegrave, Hon William

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the contribution which Government policies have made in meeting the needs of women, particularly through the increased level and range of health service provision and the encouragement and help given to them to play a fuller role in the community and in employment.

Tamils (Removal)

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that earlier today there was a private notice question to the Home Secretary about the removal of applicants for refugee status in Britain. You may well be aware—but, if not, I am glad to tell you—that judicial review applications have been lodged on behalf of all those people and that they have now been allowed by the Home Secretary to remain in this country so that their cases can be properly heard. In view of the statements made today by the Minister and his extreme reluctance to accept that there should be proper consideration of these cases, could you now arrange for him to come back to the House and say that he has a duty to consider these matters rather than to attempt to throw people out of this country before they have had a chance to exercise their legal rights?

Mr. Dave Nellist: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Is this on the same point of order?

Mr. Nellist: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker —[Interruption.] I hope that we can have a bit of quiet from the racist tendency in the Conservative party. That is a general comment. I do not name any individual hon. Member.
Within the last half hour the Press Association has reported that the forced removals—information about which was given to you, Mr. Speaker, by the Minister of State, Home Office this afternoon in reply to the private notice question of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs)—have been deferred.
My point of order is that during debates last year on the introduction of the visa system for Sri Lankan and especially Tamil refugees, clear indications were given that the rights of Members of Parliament to telephone the Home Office about cases of asylum would not be affected by the regulations. This morning I telephoned the Home office on behalf of at least two families whose relatives are constituents of mine in Coventry. To say that I received a brush-off from the officials at the Home Office is to put it mildly.
All I am asking it whether it is possible for the Minister of State to explain how, given the fact that some officials in his Department take 18 months to decide whether a refugee case is genuine, the Secretary of State can decide within 72 hours that not one of 64 cases is genuine. yet this evening those removals have been prevented. The House is at least entitled to a full explanation from the Minister of State of that enormous U-turn on those cases.

Mr. Speaker: None of that is a matter for me. It is not the role of the Chair to monitor matters of that sort. As I said earlier this afternoon, what is said from the Front Bench, provided that it is in order, is not a matter for me.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Having heard exactly what you said, may I very briefly, through you, ask the Leader of the House, or an hon. Member on the Government Front Bench to take back to the Leader of the House a request, for a statement later this evening or tomorrow on a matter of justice in the light of the court case?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that that request will have been heard.

Social Security

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move,
That the draft Social Security (Payments on Account, Overpayment and Recovery) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.
These regulations replace those which were laid by negative instrument on 17 December last. For reasons which are somewhat detailed and related to part II of the Social Security Act 1986, the regulations should have been laid as affirmative measures. This has now been done. That is why we are here tonight. The previous instrument was on sale for only four days. Arrangements have been made to ensure that anyone who bought a copy will be entitled to receive a copy of the final instrument without further charge.
On the matters of substance, I know that the House will welcome this opportunity to debate the several advances in principle and practice which have been achieved by means of this instrument. The first and most important of these advances is in the important area of harmonisation. One of our primary objectives has been to seek ways in which one can make life a little easier for the average claimant to find his way through the benefits wood.
The first objective has to be to identify rules which could be made common to all benefits and to combine the several tracks which have been carved out of the wood by means of the piecemeal introduction of individual benefits over the years. These regulations bring together in a single instrument various items of legislation that had previously been scattered across a wide range of instruments. The House will observe from the number of regulations, from previous enactments that we have been able to revoke in part I of the schedule to these regulations, that we have achieved considerable success in our pursuit of harmonisation. An assortment of about 15 regulations from four different Acts have been combined in one set of regulations under the 1986 Act.
Secondly, our aim has been to simplify, in a complex system of benefits such as has evolved in this country over a long period, a person's rights and obligations. Those rights and duties under one set of benefit rules may conflict with those which apply to some other benefit to which a beneficiary may also be entitled.
This is typified by the differences betwen the tests for recoverability of overpayments under the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976 and the Social Security Act 1975. The differences exist for largely historical reasons. Under the 1975 Act, the test applied by the adjudicating authorities is whether the claimant exercised due care and diligence in obtaining the benefit. For supplementary benefits, the adjudication officer must find that the person misrepresented or failed to disclose a material fact. Both tests have their own case law and where overpayments occur involving two benefits — for instance unemployment benefit and supplementary benefit — the application of different tests is confusing and may produce different results.
There is now to be a single test, and the argument for a single test is, I think, overwhelming. The test is to be the one now applied to supplementary benefit—that is, of misrepresentation or failure to disclose, and the provision

of the test by way of section 53 of the Social Security Act 1986 was debated fully at the time that the Bill passed through the House. It was chosen as a single test for three reasons. First, it is less subjective and easier to understand and operate than the alternative test of due care and diligence. Secondly, it is the far more commonly used test — local offices deal with eight times as many supplementary benefit overpayments as the combined total of overpayments of other benefits. Finally, while use of the failure to disclose test provides some small savings from additional benefit recovered and rather more by way of staff time and other administrative costs, adoption of the due care and diligence test would result in substantial additional costs arising from extra staff time and administrative expenses.
No other changes arise from the adoption of the common test. Appeal rights remain unchanged. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will continue to exercise his discretion sympathetically in considering the extent to which recovery should be pursued. In considering how and whether to effect recovery, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will, as now, give due weight to factors such as the age and health of the beneficiary and the general financial circumstances of the family.
Turning to matters of individual regulations, the items which I shall be covering in detail are: interim payments, the sterling equivalents of payments made by foreign social security organisations, the diminution of capital, the recovery of one overpaid benefit from another benefit and changes arising from equal treatment of male and female claimants to benefit.
Regulations 2 to 4 deal with interim payments. Hitherto, interim payments have been made on an extra-statutory basis and, with these regulations, we have taken the opportunity to spell out the circumstances in which they can be made when we are unable to process and pay benefit in the usual way.

Mr. Frank Field: Slow down a bit.

Mr. Lyell: I am sorry.
The sterling equivalents of payments made by foreign social security organisations — regulation 11 — are of particular fascination. As our links with Europe expand, this calculation is, and will increasingly become, a factor which has to be taken into account.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: rose—

Mr. Lyell: As a European enthusiast, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that.
The need for a provision in the 1986 Act arose from a social security commissioner's decision. We have provided a solution which avoids any sophisticated calculations relating to exchange rates and making assessments of what would have been obtained by shopping around the banks —the sterling equivalent will be the actual net amount of sterling actually received by the claimant from the bank after paying any charges. This, then, will be the amount which is taken into account for offsetting purposes when calculating supplementary benefit entitlement under part IV of these regulations. That will be welcomed, even in Ross and Cromarty.

Mr. Kennedy: And Skye.

Mr. Lyell: And Skye.
Regulation 15 relates to a subject which was debated in Committee on the Bill when the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) tabled amendments on the assessment of diminution of capital. For the benefit of those less well versed in the darker corners of social security, the context is a person who has been overpaid supplementary benefit because he or she has failed to declare some or all of the capital assets. In calculating the overpayment, we assume that if we had not paid the benefit, the capital would have been eroded by similar amounts. Where the result would have taken the capital below £3,000, there would have been no overpayment and thus the amount repayable is limited.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the then Minister of State—the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton)—said that we would substitute for the present week-by-week recalculation of capital, which arose from case law, a regulation which provided for annual calculation. In the event, we thought that recalculation at yearly intervals would be unduly harsh and have made it a quarterly calculation. It will save a great deal of time working out the sum each week. It will affect very few people. Only when the overpayment period ends with a number of weeks less than 13 will the capital not be calculated as diminishing. But this will only have an effect on the much smaller number of cases where, during those few weeks, the capital would have fallen to below £3,000. So we only use this estimate of diminishing capital where it was not disclosed in the first place, and that is the reason for the overpayment. The solution that we have provided gives officials some respite from very detailed weekly calculation. The effect on those who have been overpaid will be negligible. Recovery of one overpaid benefit from another benefit is dealt with by regulation 16, which ensures, generally, that an overpayment of one benefit incurred by a person can be recovered from another benefit payable to him, except when it is paid to him on behalf of a child.
Finally, perhaps appropriately, in the context of this evening's earlier debate, equal benefit treatment of male and female claimants is covered by regulation 18. Regulation 18 is a consequence of equal treatment changes which enable partners to choose who shall be the head of the household for the purposes of claiming supplementary benefit or FIS. This regulation provides that, if partners switch eligibility in that way, any obligation to repay an overpayment will be similarly switched. The regulation is confined to supplementary benefit and FIS and does not provide for recovery from other benefits payable to the other partner.
I have tried to highlight some of the regulations that have attracted earlier attention during the passage of the 1986 Act from which they derive. The change to a single test for recoverability and the dropping of the due care and diligence provision created a number of interesting discussions in committee. The principle was, however, accepted and these regulations simply put the recovery process into context against the background of the single test which section 53 (1) of the Act provides.
For the rest, we have largely gathered together some scattered provisions relating to individual benefits. In the process we have tried, where possible, to present the regulations in plainer English, insofar as the powers in the Act permit. I commend the regulations to the House for approval.

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I listened with interest to the Minister's recitation. It is not always given to the Opposition to see chickens come home to roost so speedily and thoroughly. This time last year, and for many weeks thereafter, we consistently warned the Government of the dangers of passing an enormous and unwieldy enabling Act, such as the Social Security Act 1986. Over and over again the Under-Secretary benefited by being absent from that Committee. We warned the Government over and over again of the dangers of leaving as much detail and policy as they were doing to the regulations, rather than submitting them to the greater scrutiny of the Standing Committee and of another place.
Indeed, so concerned were we about the inadequacy of the procedures for the amount of material that the Government were trying to force through that we offered them, towards the end of the Committee stage, a solution which they rejected in haste, but which I suspect they will repent at leisure. Indeed, we will all repent at leisure. As the now Minister may remember, we offered him the idea of amendable regulations, which he dismissed rather contemptuously as being an outdated notion inappropriate to this measure.
It has long been clear that this Government, more than any other in living memory, need amendable regulations. Time after time the Government put effective regulations before the House, and although I congratulate the Under-Secretary on the smoothness with which he passed over it, time after time they put illegal regulations before the House, as they have on this occasion.
The first set of regulations that the Government put before the House were ultra vires and had to be replaced by the regulations that we are debating tonight. What is interesting is that although the Government rejected the thesis of having amendable regulations, they have, in effect, through their continued incompetence, devised their own weird method of introducing amendable regulations. The regulations that are before us tonight, although they replace the set that were ultra vires, have been amended —only in comparatively minor ways—and, presumably, as the Government see it, improved from the first draft that was put before the House in December. It is a rather strange method of proceeding to introduce one set of regulations which were ultra vires and then hastily introduce a fresh set which are improved as we go along.
I have bad news for the Government. We fear that this second set of regulations may be defective, and I have a number of questions to put to the Minister. [Interruption.] I hear the Minister say "Oh, God". Regulation 3 allows an interim payment to be deducted either from benefit calculated later to be due or from the payment later made. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to regulation 3(b), which appears to suggest that if an interim payment has been made, and if it has not been subtracted from the money calculated to be paid, it must be deducted—the regulation says, in so many words, that the Secretary of State "shall" deduct it from benefit when it is paid—or — this is the new rule that the Government have introduced in the amending regulations — when next benefit is paid, which is sub-paragraph (ii).
It seems to us that perhaps this means that if someone receives an interim payment but it is not reclaimed at once, whatever the reason for that, it will be reclaimed the next time that benefit is claimed and awarded, even though that


may be in five years time. It is certainly an alteration from the provision that the Government submitted to the House in the first place, and I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us why the change has been made, because it might cast some light on the way in which we read it now.
Regulation 4 deals with the repayment of any overpaid interim payments. It appears that the effect of regulation 4(2) is to apply to all overpayments of an interim or advance payment the same regulations which, in other circumstances, apply only to an overpayment due to misrepresentation, whether fraudulently or otherwise. In other words, only an overpayment which has an effect, semi-deliberately or without due care and attention, is subject to the test under normal circumstances, but every interim overpayment seems to be subject to this test, which rests on someone misinterpreting or failing to disclose a material fact. That seems to be a little harsh and perhaps to be particularly inappropriate. An interim payment by definition, is made before the claim is fully completed or determined at a time when a person may not realise that a particular fact is material and is less in a position to be accurate about the representations being made. Can the Minister give the assurance that in practice an overpaid interim payment will not be so recovered unless it is clear that the failure was deliberate and not a consequence of the fact that an interim payment was being claimed?
I deliberately asked whether the Minister can give the assurance, rather than whether he will just consider it, because the other thing that appears to be the case with regulation 4 is that it seems that sums recovered under this regulation are not, as the regulations are drafted, excluded or exempted from action under regulation 3. It has been suggested to me that the interaction of regulations 3 and 4 means that the Secretary of State could still be under an obligation under regulation 3 to deduct money which in practice has already been recovered under regulation 4. I leave that thought with the Minister.
Regulations 5 to 12 seem broadly to reproduce the existing provisions—

Mr. Frank Field: Do we not know the answer to that? Although the Minister, at great speed, may have confused the House by saying that he was bringing different parts of Acts together, what the Government are doing is codifying it on the Social Security Act 1986, which made a major change, in that it disadvantaged claimants as no other group in the country. The rest of us can plead, often successfully, in court that we are unaware that we are breaking the law, but from now on, under the 1986 Act, claimants cannot do that and can still be found guilty. That is now being extended to all the other parts of the legislation that are covered by these regulations. Presumably, to the interim payments the answer will be no, because the Government want the new rule to be applied in a universal way to poor people in a way that it is not applied to anybody else.

Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend may be right in respect of one of the questions that I have raised with the Minister, in that it may be deliberate policy to decide to apply the same stringent test to interim payments. However, as I hope I have argued, in that case it is particularly inappropriate and even more unsuitable than in normal circumstances. However, I am not entirely sure, if we are correct in the way in which we read the regulations and

there is an interaction of regulations 3 and 4, whether the Government had the intention that I have described, all the more so because they have amended regulations 3 and 4 between the regulations first being made in December and the second set being made in February. Clearly they were not happy with the regulations as first drafted. Whether they are happy with them as they have ended up is another matter, and one on which I am glad to say I do not have to pronounce.
Regulations 5 to 12 seem, as far as we can see, broadly to reintroduce the existing provisions. However, again I have a question for the Minister about regulation 13. Section 53(4) of the 1986 Act states that an overpayment is not recoverable unless the decision on which it was based has been revised, except where regulations provide. I presume that regulation 13 is that to which reference is made. In the regulation it says that that should not be the case except
where the fact and circumstances of the misrepresentation or non-disclosure do not provide a basis for reviewing and revising the determination".
It is not clear why this exemption is thought to be necessary or in what circumstances it could apply. If the Minister can give us information about that, it would help us to understand why that regulation has been so drafted.
In regulation 14 the Government seem to have decided to enshrine in statute the decision of a tribunal of commissioners, so that if both an overpayment and an underpayment have occurred, one can be offset against the other, except where a potential underpayment may have occurred through a potential entitlement under the urgent cases regulations. That seems to mean that someone who may not have an entitlement ordinarily, but who would have an entitlement under the urgent cases regulations, will lose. That seems to be unfair. If it is necessary to look at the regulations for the third time, as may be the case, will the Minister consider that question?
Apart from the queries about the interaction of regulations 3 and 4, it seems that regulation 15(3) has its problems. I welcome the regulation itself. The Minister rightly identified it as coming from the work on the treatment of capital done by both sides in Committee. In paragraph (3) the definition given to a quarter seems to apply only to the first quarter of any overpayment period. Therefore, I question whether that is what the regulation is supposed to say. I note that even the amended schedule, which the Minister quoted with such pride, includes further items on the second set of regulations, one of which is defective. I take it that it is a printing error in column (2) on The Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Questions) Regulations. Apart from that, I see no further problems with the regulations.
I should like to seek one last assurance from the Minister. He referred to codifying all these changes and having one rule for a whole series of benefits. Whatever our reservations about that may be. We understand that that is the Government's intention. My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) correctly identified that, unfortunately, the Government have chosen unquestionably the more stringent test, although we recognise, for the reasons that the Minister gave, that it is more widely used. I draw to the Minister's attention the report of efficiency study to his Department, which recommends that there should be one rule—this rule. However, the report also states:


The main criticism of the test is that it is stringent and inflexible and takes no account of a beneficiary's personal circumstances.
In other words, the regulations set out how a repayment may be made, but take no account of whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances to call for a repayment on the scale that may be decided. That could be taken into account in the alternative test.
The report continues:
There is in fact provision to take a beneficiary's personal circumstances into account, it exists in the form of the Secretary of State's discretion on whether or not to recover an amount overpaid. This discretionary power is, in our view, not being exercised as fully as it ought to be.
We endorse that. I hope the Minister can assure us that in view of the way in which these regulations are intended to have effect the Secretary of State's discretionary power will be recommended to offices and that they will be encouraged to take account of individual circumstances.
I end by quoting from a report by the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders on the "Enforcement of the Law Relating to Social Security" which draws attention to the fact that the claimant
has the right to review, on grounds of hardship, not only at the time but also later, while deductions continue … We believe, however, that some of the tests applied are too stringent.
We endorse that and we understand the Government's wish, although we may be anxious about whether they have attained it in practice, to simplify this aspect of the operation of the social security system. We hope they recognise the difficulties that it will cause claimants and are prepared to encourage some ameliorative action.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: I wish to make a brief contribution to the debate. I do not wish to disappoint the Minister, but I doubt whether people will be dancing in the streets of Ross, Cromarty and Skye as a result of these regulations. I listened with care to the Minister's complex and detailed speech, and I congratulate whoever was responsible for drafting it. It must have been a tortuous exercise.
The regulations, according to the original Green Paper, "Reform of Social Security", are intended to make
social security legislation much more compact, clear and manageable.
The problem facing the Minister was summed up in an article by Tony Lynes in New Society in 1985. That article, which appeared in the "Welfare Watch" column, entitled "Overpaid and under informed", stated:
Ever since the ministries of health and social services were merged in 1968, the DHSS has looked and behaved more like two government departments than one. From a social security claimant's viewpoint, it can look more like seven or eight, each dealing with one part of the benefit system. And there is the added complication that the local unemployment benefit office does not belong to the DHSS but to the Department of Employment.
We should have some sympathy for Ministers when faced with that institution reality. but in many respects it is unsatisfactory. The regulations attempt to deal with some of the difficulties and confusions that result from the continued maintenance of the present system. That system goes against the stated intentions to simplify and clarify it.
When the Government, in their Green Paper, discussed their sensible desires to simplify the system, they said:
the Government believe that more can be done to provide common rules for common, general purposes and that there is scope for greater consistency and overall simplification.

This will assist staff, by making it easier for decisions to be taken more quickly and correctly. It will help claimants, by removing many perplexing oddities between benefits. It will make it easier to computerise the benefit system.
The Minister has suggested that fuller computerisation is likely to reduce some of the genuine errors that occur. Given the reports about the chaotic events that have attended the attempts to computerise the Inland Revenue, what progress has been made to computerise the social security system?
Some years ago a committee examined the concept and practicality of integrating tax and benefits and computerising those systems. The gentlemen in charge of the Inland Revenue said that the crucial practical matter was the selection of the computer configuration. What configuration has been selected? The evidence of the committee suggested that if a certain configuration was adopted, it would be impossible to change it on a subsequent date. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of ministerial division of responsibility across this whole front, that would make it impossible for any subsequent Administration to carry out what might be a very desirable integration of tax and benefits. I should be grateful if the Minister would clarify that, because, although slightly tenuous, it is a very important point and germane to the issue before the House. I refer to the efficiency study of 1983 on the recovery of overpayments of benefits and the rule which has been adopted. The report from the scrutiny team states:
The result is that the line between 'due care and diligence' and the exercise of discretion by the Secretary of State has become blurred. The position may be reasonably satisfactory from the beneficiary's point of view but from the point of view of the Adjudication Officer, it is not: the question whether there has been 'due care and diligence' presents him with a complicated legal test to apply to variable facts, many of them not easily ascertained.
Does the Minister think that tonight's resolution will help in resolving that particular problem?

Mr. Lyell: I congratulate the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) on the perspicacity of his observations, and the hon. Lady the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on the perspicacity of her questions.
I agree that no one will dance in any streets if they have to read these regulations. They do have a certain fascination, they are important, and I did take them fairly speedily because they did not seem to be gripping the mass of the House. Nevertheless, important questions have been raised and I shall do my best to answer them.
The hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye referred to the Department being divided up, in a sense, and said that the unemployment benefits officers act as our agents in the payment of benefits. That is well understood and has been working quite well in practice and does not give rise to difficulty.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about tax and social security benefits and computer configuration. I am venturing an answer off-the-cuff to some extent, but I fully understand the importance of these questions. I am responsible for what is known as the operational strategy for the computerisation of the entire system. I have had the pleasure and burden of looking in some detail into this issue, and the very question asked by the hon. Gentleman has been asked by me. As of this moment, and subject to correction, I have no reason to think that those, of


whatever party, who might wish to seek to make greater integration between tax and benefits will find themselves frustrated. The lines are open.
That leads me into something at the root of the hon. Lady's questions, but I may be entirely wrong. The lines of inquiry outlined in the hon. Lady's perspicacious questions seemed familiar. Dealing with them in order, the important point about regulation 3 is that it sets out more clearly the way that interim payments have been brought to account in the past. Either the adjudication officer will deduct such a payment from the actual award or the Secretary of State will deduct it from payment for the same period, or, where that is not possible, from a later payment arising from the same claim.
The point that I wish to make on regulation 4(2), which I think bears on the hon. Lady's question, is that an overpayment of an interim payment will be recoverable if the claimant fails to disclose, or misrepresents, a material fact. This contrasts with the recovery of an interim payment under regulation 2(2), whereby any correct interim payment is repayable. It is important to stress this, because nobody will have to make a repayment unless there has been a misrepresentation or a failure by him to disclose.
I am sad that the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has had to leave the Chamber, because he raised an important question which, if it were misunderstood, might trouble people more than it need. He suggested that here, uniquely, one would be unable to plead ignorance of the law and that one would find oneself faced with a test that one finds nowhere else. There are two tests, and we had to make a choice between the two. I hope I can say with confidence that we made the logical choice which anybody would have made, although I can understand the arguments against it.
There is nothing unique about this. It is far less harsh than other tests that are applied elsewhere. As will be well understood, ignorance of the law is not an excuse. I shall not go more deeply into that. Perhaps more pertinently, we might consider the position of the Inland Revenue. Overpayments or underpayments of tax are dealt with on a wholly no fault basis. There is no question of there needing to be a misrepresentation or a failure to disclose. If a person has not paid what he is required to pay, he is required to pay it, and there it is. The treatment here is not so bare or broad brush. That ought to be understood.

Mrs. Beckett: I should like the hon. and learned Gentleman to come back to what he was saying a moment ago about the purpose of regulation 2(2). If I understood him correctly, he said that it is the Department's view that the overpayment will be recovered in these circumstances if there has been misrepresentation, which would put the recovery of the overpayment of an interim payment on the same footing as the overpayment of any other benefit. That was how we first read the regulation. On re-reading it, we came to the conclusion that while that may have been, as we assumed, the Department's intention, we do not believe it to be the effect of the regulation. I think I ought to put that on the record. We think that the effect of the regulation as it is drafted, as opposed to what was intended, is to subject all interim payments to recovery in the same circumstances as apply under section 53.

Mr. Lyell: I shall repeat what I said. An overpayment of an interim payment will be recoverable if the claimant fails to disclose or misrepresents a material fact. This contrasts with the recovery of an interim payment under regulation 2(2), where any correct interim payment is repayable.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: This causes concern. I have a case to which I do not want to refer in detail because it has gone to appeal. The case that I have in mind involves the overpayment of a pension for some years before it was noticed by the Department. There is great concern about how much will be docked from the couple's pension. As I said, I do not want to refer to the details. At the end of the day I may bring it to the Minister's attention. It is accepted by everybody that no mis-information was given by the people, but that a genuine mistake was made. Now the old couple may have £6 or £7 per week taken from their pension for a considerable period. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend can reassure me that allowance can be made in such a situation.

Mr. Lyell: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the adjudicating and appellant authorities are entirely independent. Therefore, it would be inappropriate if I were to comment on a particular case, and he has rightly not done so. I shall refer back to one passage in my original speech which may be helpful to my hon. Friend. I referred to the fact that appeal rights will remain unchanged, and went on to say:
The Secretary of State will continue to exercise his discretion sympathetically in considering the extent to which recovery should be pursued. In considering how and whether to effect recovery the Secretary of State will, as now, give due weight to factors such as the age and health of the beneficiary and the general financial circumstances of the family.
I intend to be extremely careful not to say whether that applies to the case cited by my hon. Friend, but it falls within the context of my speech.
Turning to the questions raised by the hon. Lady, the point about regulation 13 is that, in general, an adjudication officer can consider an overpayment only when he is reviewing an award of benefit. Sometimes, however, there is nothing to review, but there is a need to consider misrepresentation or failure to disclose a material fact when a claimant has had an overpayment. This regulation simply provides for the adjudication officer to consider the overpayment question separately where the facts and circumstances do not allow for a review; for example, where the award had terminated at the time the overpayment came to light.
The key point to emphasise here is that no overpayment will be recovered, by definition, unless somebody has actually been overpaid; that is, paid something to which he had no entitlement. And it is not as bare and broad brush as that. Before there can be recovery of an overpayment, it must have happened, not because of a fault in the Department, but because there has been either misrepresentation or failure to disclose.
That is the position as it applies in the overwhelming majority of supplementary benefit cases and it is, in my submission, a reasonable test to apply and there are great benefits from commonality.
I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Social Security (Payments on account, Overpayment and Recovery) Regulations 1987, which were laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102 (Standing Committees on European Community documents).

SEMI-CONDUCTOR PRODUCTS

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 4133/86 on the legal protection of original topographies of semi-conductor products, and the Department of Trade and Industry's un-numbered explanatory memorandum of 22nd October 1986; endorses the importance attached to the protection of topographies; recognises the need for early decisions to ensure continued protection in the important American market; and supports the Government's decision to agree to the adoption of this instrument in the light of the undertaking by the European Commission that it will keep under review developments on reverse engineering and make proposals for further legislation as a matter or urgency as necessary.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Question agreed to.

SOUND BROADCASTING

Ordered,

That Mr. Gerald Howarth and Mr. Gregor MacKenzie be added to the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

NORFOLK AND SUFFOLK BROADS BILL

Question put,

That Mr. Robert N. Wareing be discharged from the Select Committee on the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill and Mr. Dave Nellist be added to the Committee. —[Mr. Lightbown.]

Hon. Members: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Objection taken.

To be considered tomorrow.

Breast Cancer Screening (Bolton)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now Adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Mr. Tom Sackville: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of breast cancer, the cancer to which women are most vulnerable. It leads to 15,000 deaths a year and many lives—perhaps up to a third of those in the 50 to 70 age range—could be saved if an effective screening programme were provided and if those women who are most at risk could be persuaded to take advantage of it.
The interim report of the Forrest committee has confirmed that there is an urgent need for a screening programme and that mammography is the technique most likely to succeed. The final report of the Forrest committee and the Government's response are anxiously awaited. What I hope to hear is that the Government are able to provide funding for a number of health districts to run their own pilot schemes, but I also expect that Forrest's call for caution will be reflected. To attempt to run full tilt into schemes all over the country in health authorities which are not adequately prepared would lead to serious problems, of which cost would be only one.
Mammography is a sophisticated and specialised treatment. As Forrest says, it would not be sensible to introduce mammographic screening on a United Kingdom basis without providing the necessary back-up services to assess the abnormalities that would be detected.
My principal purpose tonight is to show why Bolton can provide the necessary back-up services and does fulfil the other criteria to run one of the pilot schemes. I believe this for the following reasons.
First, we have the expertise in Bolton to run a scheme. We have radiographers who are used to mammographic techniques, radiologists who are experienced in the interpretation of mammograms, surgeons and radiotherapists who are experienced in the management of breast disease, and pathologists who are experienced in the interpretation of needle biopsies and the localisation of minute breast tumours. For an authority which is not a centre of excellence or a teaching district, to have such a wealth of experience is rare.
Secondly, Bolton has access to substantial charitable funds, partly the balance of a highly successful charitable appeal started in 1985, mainly through the energies of my constituent Mrs. Lena Pickford — the Bolton breast scanner appeal — which resulted in the purchase of a breast scanner for the Bolton royal infirmary. I was persuaded by Mrs. Pickford to jump out of an aeroplane 2,000 ft above Blackpool airport to raise money for the appeal.
I am told that there are sufficient funds to equip a unit with most of the essential hardware. Space has been identified and only a limited amount of capital expenditure would be needed. I am also assured that many Bolton people and organisations have shown a willingness to contribute substantially to a charitable trust to offset part of the running costs of the service.
Thirdly, one of the spin-offs of the appeal and the massive publicity in the Bolton Evening News surrounding it is that women in Bolton are extremely aware of the problem of breast cancer and the need for vigilance. This is reflected in the increased attendance at the local breast


clinic. It is widely recognised that no screening programme is likely to succeed unless it achieves a 75 per cent. attandance. Otherwise it is unlikely to make a significant dent in the problem. It would be a pity to allow this heightened awareness to dissipate. Now is the optimum time to introduce a scheme in Bolton.
Fourthly, I emphasise that the introduction of a mammographic screening scheme in what might be called an ordinary district such as Bolton would be a most practical and cost-effective way of testing the Forrest report's recommendations and the practicability of its proposals before their wider application. If only centres of excellence are used, little will be learnt in a management sense and many of the problems that have occurred in trying to introduce a workable national cervical cancer call and recall scheme will be experienced yet again.
The chairman and members of Bolton health authority are highly motivated and involved. Under our general manager, Victor Peel, who is surely one of the most professional and forward-thinking managers in the NHS, the authority has gained a solid track record in encouraging, managing and monitoring new policies and clinical innovations. For example, Bolton runs one of the largest and most successful resettlement schemes for the mentally handicapped. Bolton has started to make sharp reductions in hospital waiting lists by using facilities in outside authorities and in the private sector. Bolton is a training district for new general managers and is one of the three training centres in England specialising in training staff to deal with AIDS.
In 1985, 78 women in Bolton died of breast cancer. There are more than 13,000 women between the ages of 50 and 60 in Bolton, the age group which would benefit most from the screening programme. Through the success of the appeal and in other ways, people in Bolton have shown that they are willing to do their bit to fight this dreadful disease. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that the Government recognise this achievement and designate Bolton as one of the pilot areas for a mammographic screening scheme.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville) on his success in the ballot and on raising this most important subject on behalf of his constituents. He is a determined and doughty fighter for his constituents in Bolton and he has shown a great interest in all health care matters. Correspondence on similar topics has also been received from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham). I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West will be happy if I acknowledge that fact.
The statistics on breast cancer that were produced by my hon. Friend are accurate. There are 15,000 deaths a year from breast cancer, and 24,000 new cases each year. It is the major premature killer of women in middle age. We think that lung cancer will soon catch up, but at the moment breast cancer is the major killer. However, my hon. Friend might not know that about 100 men die each year from breast cancer, so it is also an important issue for men.
Mass screening has not been introduced in the past because of serious scientific doubts about the effectiveness of the various methods. In 1979, therefore, the Government started to fund a long-term research programme that is still under way. The objectives of the United Kingdom trials have been to test the effectiveness of different methods, which have been funded to the tune of some £5 million in total—around £750,000 a year—and 250,000 women, aged betwen 45 and 64, are being looked after in eight centres round the country. I had the privilege recently of visiting one of those centres in Surrey. We are expecting a comprehensive report on those trials in 1988.
In 1985, a Swedish study was published that removed many of the doubts about the value of screening by one particular method—mammography, to which my hon. Friend referred. As a result, the then Minister for Health, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), on behalf of other United Kingdom Health Ministers, set up in July 1985 an expert working group under the chairmanship of Sir Patrick Forrest, the Regius professor of surgery at Edinburgh university.
The remit of the Forrest group was, first, to review the available evidence and to consider the extent to which that evidence suggested that there should be a change in United Kingdom policy and, secondly, to set out the policy options, their costs and benefits and overall implications for the Health Service. They were briefed to do more than just look at the screening system. They were briefed to look at all the implications of introducing such a system and what this might mean in terms of treatment and other resources.
The interim report of the Forrest group was received in January 1986 and copies are in the Library of the House. The conclusions of the interim report were:
There is a convincing case, on clinical grounds, for a change in United Kingdom policy on the provision of mammographic facilities and the screening of symptomless women
aged 50 and over. The report made it quite clear that
it would not he sensible to introduce mammographic screening on a United Kingdom basis without providing the necessary back-up services.
I think that answers my hon. Friend's point.
The final report, which sets out policy options, their costs and benefits and the implications for the Health Service, was presented to Ministers in November 1986. We are giving it the most careful study and we hope to respond shortly.
The trials that are under way have already produced a considerable amount of worthwhile information. The response rates to invitations to mammographic screening have been between 60 and 70 per cent.—Guildford 69 per cent and Edinburgh 64 per cent. The registers that are in use, which are based on the family practitioner committees' population registers, can never be completely up to date, so it is possible that the true response rates are higher. However, I picked up with interest an element in a letter from the district general manager of Bolton, Mr. Peel, in which he carefully said, and I think he is absolutely right:
In starting such a screening programme it is important to recognise from the onset that at least 75 per cent. attendance rate must be obtained to show any significant improvement in the population. In view of the exceptionally successful Breast Scanner Appeal last year with considerable helpful local media coverage, Bolton is very 'breast conscious' as is


reflected in the increased number attending the breast clinic and now would be the best possible time to introduce such a scheme.
It is immensely encouraging that the health professionals in Bolton are aware that a screening system will not work unless a higher response rate is achieved.
We also know from experience with the cervical cancer programme that GPs have a key role to play in encouraging women to be screened, supported, of course, by appropriate health education. I was delighted to learn of the interest shown by GPs, as well as by women patients in Bolton, which suggests that all concerned would accept their responsibilities in that way.
The Forrest interim report drew attention to a most important constraint. It stated:
To assess mammographic abnormalities and to reduce biopsies to a manageable number, expert diagnostic services are necessary. These include clinical examination, additional mammography, untrasonography and fine needle aspiration and cytology. These require the availability of a multidisciplinary team including, surgeons or other clinicians, radiologists and histopathologists skilled in the management of women with early cancers. These expert services are not generally available in the National Health Service at the present time.
For that system to be successful, screening and subsequent assessment and diagnosis and treatment would require expertise of a very high standard. We should need to build on the existing expertise, and I note Mr. Peel's assertion in his letter from which I have already quoted:
We have the expertise in Bolton to run such a scheme.
I am delighted to learn that Bolton believes that it has experienced staff in the relevant disciplines. Indeed, Bolton has a Health Service of which it can be very proud. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West mentioned, more in-patients are receiving care at the moment. In 1982, some 32,500 in-patients were cared for. That figure had risen to 35,289 in 1985, and that represents an 8 per cent. increase. Day cases have risen in that time from 3,900 to 4,400 and day patient attendances have risen from 16,900 to 21,900. Similarly over that period, out-patient attendances have increased from 174,000 to 200,000 and that is a 15 per cent. increase.
Those increases have occurred without an enormous increase in resources. The allocation of gross revenue expenditure in 1982–83 was £32,719,000. The figure this year is about £38,700,000. That is not an enormous increase, especially considering the demands on the Health Service in an area such as Bolton. The Bolton area has done extremely well with the money that has been allocated.
I listened with great interest to the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West that an inexperienced district health authority might be linked to an existing centre of excellence. In his letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West, Mr. Peel stated:
We would suggest a phased introduction of a mammography scheme using Bolton as one of the pilot Districts, would be the most practicable and cost effective way both of testing the Forrest Report's recommendations and practicability prior to wider application. We would strongly suggest that if only 'centres of excellence' are used then little will he learnt in the management sense, and many of the problems that have occurred in trying to produce a workable national cervical call and recall screening service would be experienced yet again.

Mr. Peel continues in his letter to state:
There are 13,600 women in the 50–60 age group in Bolton which means approximately 100–120 mammograms a week using single oblique view only. If linking the Bolton district to another 'specialist centre' for the purpose of the trial would help the learning process we would be more than happy to do this.
I have made informal inquiries of the regional health authority which would be the appropriate body to decide these matters. The RHA praised the excellent work that has been done in connection with the appeal which involved my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West falling out of an aeroplane, as he said earlier. The RHA informed me that for approximately the past two years there has been an appeal in the Bolton district to raise funds for equipment for breast cancer screening. The lady who launched the appeal originally suffered from that disease. It was anticipated that the campaign would raise approximately £25,000, but due to public interest, arid press and media support, approximately three times that amount has been raised.
One mammography unit, a Mamex DC, was purchased in 1985 at a cost of about £26,000. It is intended to purchase a Mamex DC Mag, a rather more expensive version of the DC. The Department has evaluated this unit and eight others, and the working party will report in April.
I am sure that my hon. Friend would wish me to say how much everybody appreciates the enormous effort that has been made by all the people in Bolton. On behalf of all the people concerned—clinicians, professionals and local people — I congratulate the people of Bolton on raising this considerable sum of money — three times more than was expected. I know that they are continuing their fund-raising efforts. We are delighted to see how much support local people are willing to give to the Health Service. By so doing perhaps they express the gratitude that many people feel for the service that they get from our hospitals, clinics and other units.
The region goes on to say—and this must be the last word—that due to public support the clinicians in the district have been prompted to carry forward their interest to start a local mammography scheme. As the public interest is already founded in the district, they feel that they are in a good situation for a pilot scheme. However, the district health authority is concerned about starting the scheme not knowing from where future revenue moneys could be obtained and it is therefore awaiting the recommendations of the Forrest committee.
We shall take carefully into account what my hon. Friend has said. We are delighted to see his commitment and that of all his constituents and the professionals working in the Health Service to the Health Service. It is nice to see people who want to do more and do better for the Health Service by helping to raise the money I am delighted that we have had this opportunity to discuss this important subject and I shall ensure that the issues raised are taken carefully into account when decisions are made.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes past Eleven o'clock.